AIM: It is recognized that stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for centrally located lung metastases is affected by higher rates of severe toxicity. In the present study, we report the clinical outcomes following a novel intensity-modulated radiotherapy prescription dose, termed simultaneous integrated protection (SIP), for nearby organs at risk (OARs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prescribed total doses of SBRT were 70 Gy in 10 fractions and 60 Gy in 8 fractions. For ultra-centrally located lesions, a dose of 60 Gy in 10 fractions was delivered. The main planning instructions were: (1) to remain within the limits of the given dose constraints for an OAR; (2) to make use of the maximum possible dose to the OARs to minimize dose inhomogeneity for the Planning Target Volume (PTV). SBRT-related toxicity was prospectively assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0. The primary clinical endpoint was the SBRT-related toxicity. Secondary endpoint was local control. RESULTS: Forty patients affected by a single central malignancy were analyzed. The median follow-up was 20 months (range, 6-58 months). Acute and late clinical pulmonary toxicity ≥grade 2 was recorded in 2 out of 40 patients (5%) and 3 out of 40 patients (7%), respectively. No patient experienced cardiac toxicity. No narrowing or stenosis of any airway or vessel was registered. One-year local control rate was 91%. The median time to local progression was 13 months (range, 6-46 months). CONCLUSION: SBRT using a PTV-SIP approach for single central lung metastases achieved low SBRT-related toxicity with acceptable local control.
AIM: It is recognized that stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for centrally located lung metastases is affected by higher rates of severe toxicity. In the present study, we report the clinical outcomes following a novel intensity-modulated radiotherapy prescription dose, termed simultaneous integrated protection (SIP), for nearby organs at risk (OARs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prescribed total doses of SBRT were 70 Gy in 10 fractions and 60 Gy in 8 fractions. For ultra-centrally located lesions, a dose of 60 Gy in 10 fractions was delivered. The main planning instructions were: (1) to remain within the limits of the given dose constraints for an OAR; (2) to make use of the maximum possible dose to the OARs to minimize dose inhomogeneity for the Planning Target Volume (PTV). SBRT-related toxicity was prospectively assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0. The primary clinical endpoint was the SBRT-related toxicity. Secondary endpoint was local control. RESULTS: Forty patients affected by a single central malignancy were analyzed. The median follow-up was 20 months (range, 6-58 months). Acute and late clinical pulmonary toxicity ≥grade 2 was recorded in 2 out of 40 patients (5%) and 3 out of 40 patients (7%), respectively. No patient experienced cardiac toxicity. No narrowing or stenosis of any airway or vessel was registered. One-year local control rate was 91%. The median time to local progression was 13 months (range, 6-46 months). CONCLUSION: SBRT using a PTV-SIP approach for single central lung metastases achieved low SBRT-related toxicity with acceptable local control.
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: Daniel H Schanne; Ursula Nestle; Michael Allgäuer; Nicolaus Andratschke; Steffen Appold; Ute Dieckmann; Iris Ernst; Ute Ganswindt; Anca L Grosu; Richard Holy; Michael Molls; Meinhard Nevinny-Stickel; Sabine Semrau; Florian Sterzing; Andrea Wittig; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Simon S Lo; Achilles J Fakiris; Eric L Chang; Nina A Mayr; Jian Z Wang; Lech Papiez; Bin S Teh; Ronald C McGarry; Higinia R Cardenes; Robert D Timmerman Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Qiaoqiao Li; Cameron W Swanick; Pamela K Allen; Daniel R Gomez; James W Welsh; Zhongxing Liao; Peter A Balter; Joe Y Chang Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Joe Y Chang; Qiao-Qiao Li; Qing-Yong Xu; Pamela K Allen; Neal Rebueno; Daniel R Gomez; Peter Balter; Ritsuko Komaki; Reza Mehran; Stephen G Swisher; Jack A Roth Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: F Alongi; L Nicosia; V Figlia; V De Sanctis; R Mazzola; N Giaj-Levra; C Reverberi; M Valeriani; M F Osti Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2021-04-10 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Rosie Cooke; Philip Camilleri; Kwun-Ye Chu; Séan M O'Cathail; Maxwell Robinson; Frank Van Den Heuvel; Maria A Hawkins Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-02-17
Authors: Roman O Kowalchuk; Michael R Waters; Martin Richardson; Kelly Spencer; James M Larner; Charles R Kersh Journal: Thorac Cancer Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 3.500