Juliane Hoerner-Rieber1,2, Marciana Duma3, Oliver Blanck4, Guido Hildebrandt5, Andrea Wittig6, Fabian Lohaus7,8,9, Michael Flentje10, Frederick Mantel10, Robert Krempien11, Michael J Eble12, Klaus Henning Kahl13, Judit Boda-Heggemann14, Stefan Rieken1,2, Matthias Guckenberger15. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, UKSH Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany. 6. Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Philipps-University Marburg, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Germany. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital C.G. Carus, Technical University Dresden, Germany. 8. German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) partner site Dresden, Germany. 9. OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Germany. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Helios Klinikum Berlin Buch, Berlin, Germany. 12. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany. 13. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Augsburg, Germany. 14. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Germany. 15. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is traditionally considered to be radioresistant. Radiotherapy response rates are believed to improve with hypofractionated, high dose stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). However, limited data exist regarding the role of SBRT in the treatment of pulmonary metastases. METHODS: The working group "Stereotactic Radiotherapy" of the German Society of Radiation Oncology analyzed its multi-institutional database of more than 700 patients who received SBRT for pulmonary metastases. Treatment was performed at 10 centers between 2001 and 2016. Patients with metastatic RCC were included in the study. Tumor characteristics, treatment details, and follow-up data including survival, local control (LC), distant metastases, and toxicity were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 46 RCC patients treated with SBRT for 67 lung metastases were identified, who received a median total biologically effective dose (BEDiso) at planning target volume (PTV) isocenter of 117.0 Gy (range, 48.0-189.0 Gy). A median fractional dose of 20.8 Gy at isocenter (range, 6.0-37.9 Gy) was administered in a median number of 3 fractions (1-8 fractions). After a median follow-up time of 28.3 months for all patients, 1- and 3-year LC rates were 98.1% and 91.9%, with corresponding 1- and 3-year overall survival (OS) of 84.3% and 43.8%, respectively. Pulmonary metastases treated with BEDiso ≥130 Gy showed a trend for superior LC (P=0.054). OS was significantly improved in both uni- and multivariate analysis for patients with higher Karnofsky performance scale, lower maximum pulmonary metastasis diameter and lack of post-SBRT systemic therapy due to progression (P=0.014; P=0.049; P=0.006). Only mild acute and late toxicity was reported. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT for pulmonary metastases from RCC was associated with low treatment-associated toxicity, promising survival, and excellent LC, especially in those patients receiving a BEDiso ≥130 Gy.
BACKGROUND: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is traditionally considered to be radioresistant. Radiotherapy response rates are believed to improve with hypofractionated, high dose stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). However, limited data exist regarding the role of SBRT in the treatment of pulmonary metastases. METHODS: The working group "Stereotactic Radiotherapy" of the German Society of Radiation Oncology analyzed its multi-institutional database of more than 700 patients who received SBRT for pulmonary metastases. Treatment was performed at 10 centers between 2001 and 2016. Patients with metastatic RCC were included in the study. Tumor characteristics, treatment details, and follow-up data including survival, local control (LC), distant metastases, and toxicity were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 46 RCC patients treated with SBRT for 67 lung metastases were identified, who received a median total biologically effective dose (BEDiso) at planning target volume (PTV) isocenter of 117.0 Gy (range, 48.0-189.0 Gy). A median fractional dose of 20.8 Gy at isocenter (range, 6.0-37.9 Gy) was administered in a median number of 3 fractions (1-8 fractions). After a median follow-up time of 28.3 months for all patients, 1- and 3-year LC rates were 98.1% and 91.9%, with corresponding 1- and 3-year overall survival (OS) of 84.3% and 43.8%, respectively. Pulmonary metastases treated with BEDiso ≥130 Gy showed a trend for superior LC (P=0.054). OS was significantly improved in both uni- and multivariate analysis for patients with higher Karnofsky performance scale, lower maximum pulmonary metastasis diameter and lack of post-SBRT systemic therapy due to progression (P=0.014; P=0.049; P=0.006). Only mild acute and late toxicity was reported. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT for pulmonary metastases from RCC was associated with low treatment-associated toxicity, promising survival, and excellent LC, especially in those patients receiving a BEDiso ≥130 Gy.
Authors: Robert Timmerman; Rebecca Paulus; James Galvin; Jeffrey Michalski; William Straube; Jeffrey Bradley; Achilles Fakiris; Andrea Bezjak; Gregory Videtic; David Johnstone; Jack Fowler; Elizabeth Gore; Hak Choy Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Toni K Choueiri; Mayer N Fishman; Bernard Escudier; David F McDermott; Charles G Drake; Harriet Kluger; Walter M Stadler; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Douglas G McNeel; Brendan Curti; Michael R Harrison; Elizabeth R Plimack; Leonard Appleman; Lawrence Fong; Laurence Albiges; Lewis Cohen; Tina C Young; Scott D Chasalow; Petra Ross-Macdonald; Shivani Srivastava; Maria Jure-Kunkel; John F Kurland; Jason S Simon; Mario Sznol Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Larry Kestin; Inga Grills; Matthias Guckenberger; Jose Belderbos; Andrew J Hope; Maria Werner-Wasik; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Jean-Pierre Bissonnette; Ying Xiao; Di Yan Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Florian Sterzing; Thomas B Brunner; Iris Ernst; Wolfgang W Baus; Burkhard Greve; Klaus Herfarth; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Saeed Dabestani; Lorenzo Marconi; Fabian Hofmann; Fiona Stewart; Thomas B L Lam; Steven E Canfield; Michael Staehler; Thomas Powles; Börje Ljungberg; Axel Bex Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-10-26 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Borje Ljungberg; Karim Bensalah; Steven Canfield; Saeed Dabestani; Fabian Hofmann; Milan Hora; Markus A Kuczyk; Thomas Lam; Lorenzo Marconi; Axel S Merseburger; Peter Mulders; Thomas Powles; Michael Staehler; Alessandro Volpe; Axel Bex Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Pranshu Mohindra; Amit Sawant; Robert J Griffin; Narottam Lamichhane; Erina Vlashi; Meng Xu-Welliver; Michael Dominello; Michael C Joiner; Jay Burmeister Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 2.102