BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Incidental irradiation of normal brain tissue during radiotherapy is linked to cognitive decline, and may be mediated by damage to healthy cortex. Non-coplanar techniques may be used for cortical sparing. We compared normal brain sparing and probability of cortical atrophy using 4π radiation therapy planning vs. standard fixed gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Plans from previously irradiated brain tumor patients ("original IMRT", n = 13) were re-planned to spare cortex using both 4π optimization ("4π") and IMRT optimization ("optimized IMRT"). Homogeneity index (HI), gradient measure, doses to cortex and white matter (excluding tumor), brainstem, optics, and hippocampus were compared with matching PTV coverage. Probability of three grades of post-treatment cortical atrophy was modeled based on previously established dose response curves. RESULTS: With matching PTV coverage, 4π significantly improved HI by 27% (p = 0.005) and gradient measure by 8% (p = 0.001) compared with optimized IMRT. 4π optimization reduced mean and equivalent uniform doses (EUD) to all standard OARs, with 14-15% reduction in hippocampal EUD (p ≤ 0.003) compared with the other two plans. 4π significantly reduced dose to fractional cortical volumes (V50, V40 and V30) compared with the original IMRT plans, and reduced cortical V30 by 7% (p = 0.008) compared with optimized IMRT. White matter EUD, mean dose, and fractional volumes V50, V40 and V30 were also significantly lower with 4π (p ≤ 0.001). With 4π, probability of grade 1, 2 and 3 cortical atrophy decreased by 12%, 21% and 26% compared with original IMRT and by 8%, 14% and 3% compared with optimized IMRT, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: 4π radiotherapy significantly improved cortical sparing and reduced doses to standard brain OARs, white matter, and the hippocampus. This was achieved with superior PTV dose homogeneity. Such sparing could reduce the probability of cortical atrophy that may lead to cognitive decline.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Incidental irradiation of normal brain tissue during radiotherapy is linked to cognitive decline, and may be mediated by damage to healthy cortex. Non-coplanar techniques may be used for cortical sparing. We compared normal brain sparing and probability of cortical atrophy using 4π radiation therapy planning vs. standard fixed gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Plans from previously irradiated brain tumorpatients ("original IMRT", n = 13) were re-planned to spare cortex using both 4π optimization ("4π") and IMRT optimization ("optimized IMRT"). Homogeneity index (HI), gradient measure, doses to cortex and white matter (excluding tumor), brainstem, optics, and hippocampus were compared with matching PTV coverage. Probability of three grades of post-treatment cortical atrophy was modeled based on previously established dose response curves. RESULTS: With matching PTV coverage, 4π significantly improved HI by 27% (p = 0.005) and gradient measure by 8% (p = 0.001) compared with optimized IMRT. 4π optimization reduced mean and equivalent uniform doses (EUD) to all standard OARs, with 14-15% reduction in hippocampal EUD (p ≤ 0.003) compared with the other two plans. 4π significantly reduced dose to fractional cortical volumes (V50, V40 and V30) compared with the original IMRT plans, and reduced cortical V30 by 7% (p = 0.008) compared with optimized IMRT. White matter EUD, mean dose, and fractional volumes V50, V40 and V30 were also significantly lower with 4π (p ≤ 0.001). With 4π, probability of grade 1, 2 and 3 cortical atrophy decreased by 12%, 21% and 26% compared with original IMRT and by 8%, 14% and 3% compared with optimized IMRT, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: 4π radiotherapy significantly improved cortical sparing and reduced doses to standard brain OARs, white matter, and the hippocampus. This was achieved with superior PTV dose homogeneity. Such sparing could reduce the probability of cortical atrophy that may lead to cognitive decline.
Authors: Nancy U Lin; Jeffrey S Wefel; Eudocia Q Lee; David Schiff; Martin J van den Bent; Riccardo Soffietti; John H Suh; Michael A Vogelbaum; Minesh P Mehta; Janet Dancey; Mark E Linskey; D Ross Camidge; Hidefumi Aoyama; Paul D Brown; Susan M Chang; Steven N Kalkanis; Igor J Barani; Brigitta G Baumert; Laurie E Gaspar; F Stephen Hodi; David R Macdonald; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Carrie R McDonald; Lusineh Gharapetian; Linda K McEvoy; Christine Fennema-Notestine; Donald J Hagler; Dominic Holland; Anders M Dale Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Jean-Claude M Rwigema; Dan Nguyen; Dwight E Heron; Allen M Chen; Percy Lee; Pin-Chieh Wang; John A Vargo; Daniel A Low; M Saiful Huq; Stephen Tenn; Michael L Steinberg; Patrick Kupelian; Ke Sheng Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Roshan A Karunamuni; Kevin L Moore; Tyler M Seibert; Nan Li; Nathan S White; Hauke Bartsch; Ruben Carmona; Deborah Marshall; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Anithapriya Krishnan; Joshua Kuperman; Loren K Mell; James Brewer; Anders M Dale; Vitali Moiseenko; Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Reza Farjam; Priyanka Pramanik; Madhava P Aryal; Ashok Srinivasan; Christopher H Chapman; Christina I Tsien; Theodore S Lawrence; Yue Cao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Steven H J Nagtegaal; Szabolcs David; Tom J Snijders; Marielle E P Philippens; Alexander Leemans; Joost J C Verhoeff Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2020-05-21
Authors: Kaley E Woods; Ting Martin Ma; Kiri A Cook; Eric D Morris; Yu Gao; Ke Sheng; Amar U Kishan; John V Hegde; Carol Felix; Vincent Basehart; Kelsey Narahara; Zhouhuizi Shen; Stephen Tenn; Michael L Steinberg; Robert K Chin; Minsong Cao Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 6.639