| Literature DB >> 29594251 |
Richard Pötter1, Kari Tanderup2, Christian Kirisits1, Astrid de Leeuw3, Kathrin Kirchheiner1, Remi Nout4, Li Tee Tan5, Christine Haie-Meder6, Umesh Mahantshetty7, Barbara Segedin8, Peter Hoskin9, Kjersti Bruheim10, Bhavana Rai11, Fleur Huang12, Erik Van Limbergen13, Max Schmid1, Nicole Nesvacil1, Alina Sturdza1, Lars Fokdal2, Nina Boje Kibsgaard Jensen2, Dietmar Georg1, Marianne Assenholt2, Yvette Seppenwoolde1, Christel Nomden3, Israel Fortin1,14, Supriya Chopra7, Uulke van der Heide15, Tamara Rumpold1, Jacob Christian Lindegaard2, Ina Jürgenliemk-Schulz3.
Abstract
The publication of the GEC-ESTRO recommendations one decade ago was a significant step forward for reaching international consensus on adaptive target definition and dose reporting in image guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) in locally advanced cervical cancer. Since then, IGABT has been spreading, particularly in Europe, North America and Asia, and the guidelines have proved their broad acceptance and applicability in clinical practice. However, a unified approach to volume contouring and reporting does not imply a unified administration of treatment, and currently both external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and IGABT are delivered using a large variety of techniques and prescription/fractionation schedules. With IGABT, local control is excellent in limited and well-responding tumours. The major challenges are currently loco-regional control in advanced tumours, treatment-related morbidity, and distant metastatic disease. Emerging evidence from the RetroEMBRACE and EMBRACE I studies has demonstrated that clinical outcome is related to dose prescription and technique. The next logical step is to demonstrate excellent clinical outcome with the most advanced EBRT and brachytherapy techniques based on an evidence-based prospective dose and volume prescription protocol. The EMBRACE II study is an interventional and observational multicentre study which aims to benchmark a high level of local, nodal and systemic control while limiting morbidity, using state of the art treatment including an advanced target volume selection and contouring protocol for EBRT and brachytherapy, a multi-parametric brachytherapy dose prescription protocol (clinical validation of dose constraints), and use of advanced EBRT (IMRT and IGRT) and brachytherapy (IC/IS) techniques (clinical validation). The study also incorporates translational research including imaging and tissue biomarkers.Entities:
Keywords: Adaptive radiotherapy; Brachytherapy; Cervix cancer; Local control; MRI guided radiotherapy; Morbidity
Year: 2018 PMID: 29594251 PMCID: PMC5862686 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2018.01.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol ISSN: 2405-6308
Fig. 1The figure demonstrates the principles for dose de-escalation and dose escalation in EMBRACE II. The current distribution of CTVHR dose and volume in the EMBRACE study is shown (each point represents one patient). A number of 6 dose and volume groups are defined according to cut-points of 85 Gy and 95 Gy for the adaptive CTVHR D90 and of 30 cm3 for the CTVHR volume. For each dose-volume group the expected actuarial local control at 3 years is indicated, according to dose-effect data from the retroEMBRACE study [33].
Hypotheses of the EMBRACE II study for disease outcome and morbidity (EMBRACE II protocol, Table 5.2 modified). The hypotheses given as actuarial estimates are based on the clinical outcome of retroEMBRACE and EMBRACE. Limitation: the numbers for EMBRACE represent the status of clinical evidence available in 8/2015. For the final definition of the assumed benchmark of EMBRACE II, the final mature EMBRACE I outcome (when available) has to be taken into account as baseline for both disease related outcome as well as morbidity. Confidence intervals for the EMBRACE II hypotheses are explained in the text.
| Based on retroEMBRACE 3y/5y | Based on EMBRACE I 3y | Hypothesis EMBRACE II 3y | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 91%/89% | 91% | 93% |
| ≤30 cm3 CTVHR | 96% | 96% | 96% |
| >30 cm3 CTVHR | 87% | 88% | 91% |
| Stage IB, IIA | 98%/98% | 95% | 98% |
| Stage IIB | 93%/91% | 90% | 94% |
| Stage III | 79%/75% | 88% | 89% |
| Stage IVA | 76%/76% | 87% | 89% |
| Overall | 88% | 84% | 90% |
| N0 and Stage I + II | 93% | 91% | 94% |
| N1 and Stage III + IVA | 83% | 79% | 87% |
| Overall | 94% | 89% | 95% |
| Overall | 87%/84% | 90% | |
| Overall | 83%/79% | 83% | 86% |
| N0 and Stage I + II | 90% | 89% | 91% |
| N1 and Stage III + IVA | 74% | 79% | 79% |
| Consecutive ChT | |||
| Overall | 81%/74% | NA | 85%/78% |
| N0 and Stage I + II | 90%/87% | NA | 91%/88% |
| N1 and Stage III + IVA | 69%/57% | NA | 76%/64% |
| Consecutive ChT | |||
| Overall | 77%/67% | NA | 81%/71% |
| N0 and Stage I + II | 87%/82% | NA | 88%/83% |
| N1 and Stage III + IVA | 64%/49% | NA | 71%/56% |
| Bladder CTCAE ≥ G2 | 26% | 21% | |
| Bladder CTCAE ≥ G3 | 7% | 6% | |
| Rectum CTCAE ≥ G2 | 11% | 9% | |
| Rectum CTCAE ≥ G3 | 2% | 2% | |
| Bowel CTCAE ≥ G2 | 17% | 12% | |
| Bowel CTCAE ≥ G3 | 5% | 4% | |
| Vaginal CTCAE ≥ G2 | 27% (stenosis) 31% (all) | 20% (stenosis) 24% (all) | |
| Vaginal CTCAE ≥ G3 | 4% (all) | 3% (all) | |
Fig. 2Schematic diagram for EBRT and brachytherapy targets in cervical cancer, stage IIB bulky disease and good response after chemo-radiotherapy: coronal, transversal and sagittal view. For further details see figure 3.3 and 9.6 in the EMBRACE II protocol adapted from figure 5.10 from ICRU report 89 [9]. Panel A: EBRT targets: large GTV-Tinit, initial CTV-THR, and initial CTV-TLR. Panel B: Brachytherapy targets: limited GTV-Tres (residual GTV), adaptive CTV-THR, and CTV-TIR (GTV-Tinit plus margins around the CTV-THR). Maximum width, thickness and height of the adaptive CTV-THR are indicated.
Risk groups for defining the elective clinical target volumes for lymph nodes and corresponding nodal targets defining the radiation field extensions.
| Risk Group LN | Definition | EBRT lymph node regions |
|---|---|---|
| Low Risk | Tumour size ≤ 4 cm | “Small Pelvis” |
| Intermediate Risk | Not low risk | “Large Pelvis” Inguinal in case of distal vaginal involvement Mesorectal space in case of mesorectal nodes and advanced local disease |
| High Risk | Based on nodal pathology: ≥1 pathologic node at common iliac or above OR ≥3 pathologic nodes | “Large Pelvis + Para-aortic” |
Fig. 3Schematic Diagram for lymph node elective CTVs based on risk of lymphatic spread, “Small Pelvis”, “Large Pelvis”, “Large Pelvis + para-aortic”. The risk groups are defined in .
Dose constraints for EBRT for N0 and N1 patients. This table is an update of table 9.4 of the EMBRACE II study protocol version 1.0.
| No lymph node involvement | Involved lymph nodes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hard dose constraints | Soft dose constraints | Hard dose constraints | Soft dose constraints | |
| PTV45 | V42.75 Gy > 95% | V42.75 Gy = 95% | V42.75 Gy > 95% | V42.75 Gy = 95% |
| ITV45 | Dmin > 95% | Dmin > 95% | ||
| CTV-HR + 10 mm | Dmax < 103% | Dmax < 103% | ||
| PTV-N(#) | D98% > 90% of prescribed LN dose | D98% = 90% of prescribed LN dose | ||
| CTV-N(#) | D98% > 100% of prescribed LN dose | D50% > 102% of prescribed LN dose | ||
| Bowel | Dmax < 105% | V40Gy < 250 cm3 | Dmax < 105% | When no para-aortic irradiation: |
| Sigmoid | Dmax < 105% | Dmax < 105% | ||
| Bladder | Dmax < 105% | V40Gy < 60% | Dmax < 105% | V40Gy < 60% |
| Rectum | Dmax < 105% | V40Gy < 75% | Dmax < 105% | V40Gy < 75% |
| Spinal cord | Dmax < 48 Gy | Dmax < 48 Gy | ||
| Femoral heads | Dmax < 50 Gy | Dmax < 50 Gy | ||
| Kidney | Dmean < 15 Gy | Dmean < 10 Gy | Dmean < 15 Gy | Dmean < 10 Gy |
| Body | Dmax < 107% | Dmax < 107% | ||
| Vagina (if not involved) | DPIBS-2cm < 5 Gy | DPIBS-2cm < 5 Gy | ||
| Conformality | 1.10 (V43/Volume of PTV) | 1.10 (V43Gy/Volume of PTV) | ||
| Transposed ovaries | Dmean < 8 Gy | Dmean < 5 Gy | Dmean < 8 Gy | Dmean < 5 Gy |
| Duodenum | V55 < 15 cm3 | V55 < 15 cm3 | ||
Percentages of 45 Gy unless stated otherwise for nodes.
Dmax and Dmin for MC plans based on D99.9% and D0.1%.
Soft constraints which can be used in the treatment plan optimisation. Values are based on DVH parameters of EMBRACE II patients entered in the study before June 2017. The constraints are not supposed to be fulfilled in all patients, but by ∼70–80% of the patients.
Planning aims (soft constraints) and limits for prescribed dose (hard constraints) for treatment planning in EMBRACE II. The EQD2 is calculated using α/β = 10 for targets, α/β = 3 for OAR and a repair halftime of 1.5 h. The total EQD2 include 45 Gy/25 fractions delivered by EBRT.
| Target | D90 CTVHR | D98 CTVHR | D98 GTVres | D98 CTVIR | Point A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning Aims | >90 Gy | >75 Gy | >95 Gy | >60 Gy | >65 Gy |
| Limits for Prescribed Dose | >85 Gy | – | >90 Gy | – | – |
| OAR | Bladder D2cm3 EQD23 | Rectum D2cm3 EQD23 | Recto-vaginal point EQD23 | Sigmoid D2cm3 EQD23 | Bowel D2cm3 EQD23 |
| Planning Aims | <80 Gy | <65 Gy | <65 Gy | <70 Gy | <70 Gy |
| Limits for Prescribed Dose | <90 Gy | <75 Gy | <75 Gy | <75 Gy | <75 Gy |
For the sigmoid/bowel structures these dose constraints are valid in case of non-mobile bowel loops resulting in the situation that the most exposed volume is located at a similar part of the organ.
Parameters and constraints for vaginal dose control.
| Aim | Priority | |
|---|---|---|
| ICRU recto-vaginal point dose | <65 Gy EQD2 (EBRT + brachytherapy) | Primary |
| The ratio of vaginal TRAK and total TRAK | <30–40% | Secondary |
| Vaginal lateral dose points at 5 mm | <85 Gy EQD2 (EBRT + brachytherapy) | Secondary |
| Visual inspection of the 140% isodose | Intruding as little as possible into vaginal tissue, and preferentially located within the applicator | Secondary |
| PIBS – 2 cm | When vagina is not involved: DPIBS-2cm < 5 Gy | Secondary |