Y M Zhou1, C Freese1, T Meier1, D Go1, K Khullar1, M Sudhoff1, M Lamba1, J Kharofa2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Cincinnati Barrett Cancer Center, 234 Goodman Street, ML 0757, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Cincinnati Barrett Cancer Center, 234 Goodman Street, ML 0757, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA. kharofjr@ucmail.uc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hematologic toxicity (HT) in cervical cancer patients can cause treatment delays and reduction in chemotherapy, especially in high risk patients. Dose to PET-defined regions of active bone marrow (ABM) has been shown to correlate with cytopenias. An absolute volume of ABM spared may accurately represent hematopoietic reserve and risk of HT. This analysis evaluates whether the volume of ABM spared can more accurately predict HT compared to conventional dosimetric parameters. METHODS: Thirty-one patients treated for cervical cancer with chemoradiation from 9/2011 to 8/2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used to assess optimal cutpoint criterions for grade 3+ HT based on the CTCAEv4. Conventional dosimetric parameters to PBM and ABM (mean dose, V10, V20, V40) were assessed as well as the absolute volume (cc) of PBM and ABM spared 10, 20, and 40 Gy. RESULTS: The absolute volume of PBM spared 10 Gy (< 230 cc; AUC 0.732, p = 0.03) as well as volume of ABM spared 10 Gy (< 179 cc; AUC 0.815, p = 0.0002), spared 20 Gy (< 186 cc; AUC 0.774, p = 0.0015), and spared 40 Gy (< 738 cc; AUC 0.887, p < 0.0001) all predicted grade 3+ HT. In patients with < 738 cc of ABM spared 40 Gy, 18/18 (100%) had grade 3+ toxicity compared to 6/13 (46%) of patients with > 738 cc of ABM spared 40 Gy (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The baseline volume of ABM and the fraction of ABM present in patients vary significantly. The ongoing NRG-GY006 trial and other efforts at bone marrow sparing use V10, V20, and mean dose to the ABM during planning optimization. This analysis suggests that the volume of ABM spared 40 Gy (> 738 cc) may be a stronger predictor of HT than conventional dosimetric parameters. This should be further evaluated for clinical use.
INTRODUCTION: Hematologic toxicity (HT) in cervical cancerpatients can cause treatment delays and reduction in chemotherapy, especially in high risk patients. Dose to PET-defined regions of active bone marrow (ABM) has been shown to correlate with cytopenias. An absolute volume of ABM spared may accurately represent hematopoietic reserve and risk of HT. This analysis evaluates whether the volume of ABM spared can more accurately predict HT compared to conventional dosimetric parameters. METHODS: Thirty-one patients treated for cervical cancer with chemoradiation from 9/2011 to 8/2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used to assess optimal cutpoint criterions for grade 3+ HT based on the CTCAEv4. Conventional dosimetric parameters to PBM and ABM (mean dose, V10, V20, V40) were assessed as well as the absolute volume (cc) of PBM and ABM spared 10, 20, and 40 Gy. RESULTS: The absolute volume of PBM spared 10 Gy (< 230 cc; AUC 0.732, p = 0.03) as well as volume of ABM spared 10 Gy (< 179 cc; AUC 0.815, p = 0.0002), spared 20 Gy (< 186 cc; AUC 0.774, p = 0.0015), and spared 40 Gy (< 738 cc; AUC 0.887, p < 0.0001) all predicted grade 3+ HT. In patients with < 738 cc of ABM spared 40 Gy, 18/18 (100%) had grade 3+ toxicity compared to 6/13 (46%) of patients with > 738 cc of ABM spared 40 Gy (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The baseline volume of ABM and the fraction of ABM present in patients vary significantly. The ongoing NRG-GY006 trial and other efforts at bone marrow sparing use V10, V20, and mean dose to the ABM during planning optimization. This analysis suggests that the volume of ABM spared 40 Gy (> 738 cc) may be a stronger predictor of HT than conventional dosimetric parameters. This should be further evaluated for clinical use.
Entities:
Keywords:
Active bone marrow; Cervical cancer; Hematologic toxicity; Volume spared
Authors: Brent S Rose; Yun Liang; Steven K Lau; Lindsay G Jensen; Catheryn M Yashar; Carl K Hoh; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yun Liang; Mark Bydder; Catheryn M Yashar; Brent S Rose; Mariel Cornell; Carl K Hoh; Joshua D Lawson; John Einck; Cheryl Saenz; Paul Fanta; Arno J Mundt; Graeme M Bydder; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Olgun Elicin; Sharon Callaway; John O Prior; Jean Bourhis; Mahmut Ozsahin; Fernanda G Herrera Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Loren K Mell; Igor Sirák; Lichun Wei; Rafal Tarnawski; Umesh Mahantshetty; Catheryn M Yashar; Michael T McHale; Ronghui Xu; Gordon Honerkamp-Smith; Ruben Carmona; Mary Wright; Casey W Williamson; Linda Kasaová; Nan Li; Stephen Kry; Jeff Michalski; Walter Bosch; William Straube; Julie Schwarz; Jessica Lowenstein; Steve B Jiang; Cheryl C Saenz; Steve Plaxe; John Einck; Chonlakiet Khorprasert; Paul Koonings; Terry Harrison; Mei Shi; A J Mundt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tracey E Schefter; Brian D Kavanagh; Robert D Timmerman; Higinia R Cardenes; Anna Baron; Laurie E Gaspar Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ann H Klopp; Jennifer Moughan; Lorraine Portelance; Brigitte E Miller; Mohammad R Salehpour; Evangeline Hildebrandt; Jenny Nuanjing; David D'Souza; Luis Souhami; William Small; Rakesh Gaur; Anuja Jhingran Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John M Kirwan; Paul Symonds; John A Green; Jayne Tierney; Mandy Collingwood; Christopher J Williams Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Frederico S Falcetta; Lídia Rf Medeiros; Maria I Edelweiss; Paula R Pohlmann; Airton T Stein; Daniela D Rosa Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-11-22