Melenda D Jeter1, Daniel Gomez2, Quynh-Nhu Nguyen2, Ritsuko Komaki2, Xiaodong Zhang3, Xiaorong Zhu3, Michael O'Reilly2, Frank V Fossella4, Ting Xu2, Xiong Wei2, Hui Wang5, Wenjuan Yang5, Anne Tsao4, Radhe Mohan3, Zhongxing Liao2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: mdjeter@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Medical Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Thoracic Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Key Laboratory of Translational Radiation Oncology, Hunan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To establish, in the phase 1 portion of a prospective phase 1/2 study, the maximum tolerated dose of image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or proton therapy (IMPT), both with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB), for patients with stage II to IIIB non-small cell lung cancer receiving concurrent chemoradiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients had pathologically proven non-small cell lung cancer, either unresectable stage II to IIIB disease or recurrent disease after surgical resection, and could tolerate concurrent chemoradiation. Radiation doses were selectively escalated to the SIB volume (internal gross tumor volume + 5-mm margin), and the dose to the planning target volume (internal gross tumor volume + 8-mm margin for clinical target volume + 5 mm) was kept at 60 Gy [cobalt gray equivalent (CGE)] over 30 fractions. Patients were randomized between the IMRT and IMPT groups if slots were available on the treatment machines for both groups. Otherwise, patients were allocated to IMRT or IMPT, whichever had an open treatment slot on the machine without randomization. RESULTS:Fifteen patients (6 IMRT, 9 IMPT) were enrolled. The highest doses to the SIB were 72 Gy in the IMRT group and 78 Gy(CGE) in the IMPT group. Nine patients (6 IMRT, 3 IMPT) received an SIB dose of 72 Gy(CGE) [biologically effective dose = 89.3 Gy(CGE)], and 6 patients (IMPT) received an SIB dose of 78 Gy(CGE) [biologically effective dose = 98.3 Gy(CGE)]. Dose-limiting (grade ≥3) toxicity (esophagitis) developed in 1 of the 9 patients given 72 Gy(CGE) SIB. Grade ≥3 pneumonitis developed in 2 of the 6 patients treated to 78 Gy(CGE) IMPT SIB: 1 (grade 3) at 3 months after treatment and the other (grade 5, possibly related to treatment) at 2 months after treatment. Only 1 patient developed a marginal tumor recurrence with a median follow-up of 25 months (range, 4.3-47.4 months). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that an SIB dose of 72 Gy(CGE) be used as the highest SIB dose for the planned randomized phase 2 study. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To establish, in the phase 1 portion of a prospective phase 1/2 study, the maximum tolerated dose of image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or proton therapy (IMPT), both with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB), for patients with stage II to IIIB non-small cell lung cancer receiving concurrent chemoradiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients had pathologically proven non-small cell lung cancer, either unresectable stage II to IIIB disease or recurrent disease after surgical resection, and could tolerate concurrent chemoradiation. Radiation doses were selectively escalated to the SIB volume (internal gross tumor volume + 5-mm margin), and the dose to the planning target volume (internal gross tumor volume + 8-mm margin for clinical target volume + 5 mm) was kept at 60 Gy [cobalt gray equivalent (CGE)] over 30 fractions. Patients were randomized between the IMRT and IMPT groups if slots were available on the treatment machines for both groups. Otherwise, patients were allocated to IMRT or IMPT, whichever had an open treatment slot on the machine without randomization. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (6 IMRT, 9 IMPT) were enrolled. The highest doses to the SIB were 72 Gy in the IMRT group and 78 Gy(CGE) in the IMPT group. Nine patients (6 IMRT, 3 IMPT) received an SIB dose of 72 Gy(CGE) [biologically effective dose = 89.3 Gy(CGE)], and 6 patients (IMPT) received an SIB dose of 78 Gy(CGE) [biologically effective dose = 98.3 Gy(CGE)]. Dose-limiting (grade ≥3) toxicity (esophagitis) developed in 1 of the 9 patients given 72 Gy(CGE) SIB. Grade ≥3 pneumonitis developed in 2 of the 6 patients treated to 78 Gy(CGE) IMPT SIB: 1 (grade 3) at 3 months after treatment and the other (grade 5, possibly related to treatment) at 2 months after treatment. Only 1 patient developed a marginal tumor recurrence with a median follow-up of 25 months (range, 4.3-47.4 months). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that an SIB dose of 72 Gy(CGE) be used as the highest SIB dose for the planned randomized phase 2 study. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Mitchell Machtay; Chuanchieh Hsu; Ritsuko Komaki; William T Sause; R Suzanne Swann; Corey J Langer; Roger W Byhardt; Walter J Curran Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-05-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mark A Socinski; A William Blackstock; Jeffrey A Bogart; Xiaofei Wang; Michael Munley; Julian Rosenman; Lin Gu; Gregory A Masters; Peter Ungaro; Arthur Sleeper; Mark Green; Antonius A Miller; Everett E Vokes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jonathan Feddock; Susanne M Arnold; Brent J Shelton; Partha Sinha; Gary Conrad; Li Chen; John Rinehart; Ronald C McGarry Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Feng-Ming Kong; Randall K Ten Haken; Matthew Schipper; Kirk A Frey; James Hayman; Milton Gross; Nithya Ramnath; Khaled A Hassan; Martha Matuszak; Timothy Ritter; Nan Bi; Weili Wang; Mark Orringer; Kemp B Cease; Theodore S Lawrence; Gregory P Kalemkerian Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Jing You; Dan Yang; Dongming Li; Leilei Jiang; Rong Yu; Huiming Yu; Bo Xu; Weihu Wang; Anhui Shi Journal: Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi Date: 2019-11-20
Authors: Matthias Mäurer; Lukas Käsmann; Daniel F Fleischmann; Michael Oertel; Danny Jazmati; Daniel Medenwald Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Elisa Meldolesi; Giuditta Chiloiro; Roberta Giannini; Roberta Menghi; Roberto Persiani; Barbara Corvari; Claudio Coco; Stefania Manfrida; Carlo Ratto; Viola De Luca; Luigi Sofo; Sara Reina; Antonio Crucitti; Valeria Masiello; Nicola Dinapoli; Vincenzo Valentini; Maria Antonietta Gambacorta Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 6.639