Matthew J Ferris1, Katherine S Martin2, Jeffrey M Switchenko3, Oluwatosin A Kayode4, Jonathan Wolf4, Quang Dang4, Robert H Press4, Walter J Curran4, Kristin A Higgins4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: mjferri@emory.edu. 2. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Increasing radiation dose to the heart is associated with worse survival in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. We sought to evaluate the ability of optimized volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) to spare cardiac substructures. We also wanted to determine how a cardiac optimization treatment planning algorithm influences dose distribution to other thoracic organs at risk (OARs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Cardiac substructures were retrospectively contoured for all patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer who were treated at our institution with VMAT to 60 Gy in 2-Gy fractions. The structures included valves, atrioventricular node, coronary arteries, chambers, and great vessels. New cardiac-optimized VMAT plans were created to spare these structures while preserving planning target volume coverage and maintaining standard dose constraints to OARs. Dosimetry variables for the new cardiac-optimized VMAT plans were compared via paired t test with the original VMAT plans. IMPT plans were also created, and the cardiac-optimized VMAT plans were then similarly compared with the IMPT plans. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients who were treated from July 2013 to September 2017 were included. Compared with the original VMAT plans, statistically significant improvements were demonstrated for all cardiac structures for the new cardiac-optimized VMAT plans while maintaining or improving appropriate lung, esophagus, and spinal cord constraints and planning target volume coverage goals. Compared with cardiac-optimized VMAT, IMPT demonstrated additional statistically significant improvements for some cardiac dosimetry metrics while maintaining or improving other thoracic OAR constraints. CONCLUSIONS: VMAT is now widely available, and high-quality VMAT plans that incorporate cardiac substructures into the optimization process can provide overall improvements in dose to OARs and, in particular, substantial sparing of critical cardiac structures. IMPT provides some incremental dosimetric improvements beyond cardiac-optimized VMAT, the clinical significance of which remains uncertain.
PURPOSE: Increasing radiation dose to the heart is associated with worse survival in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. We sought to evaluate the ability of optimized volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) to spare cardiac substructures. We also wanted to determine how a cardiac optimization treatment planning algorithm influences dose distribution to other thoracic organs at risk (OARs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Cardiac substructures were retrospectively contoured for all patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer who were treated at our institution with VMAT to 60 Gy in 2-Gy fractions. The structures included valves, atrioventricular node, coronary arteries, chambers, and great vessels. New cardiac-optimized VMAT plans were created to spare these structures while preserving planning target volume coverage and maintaining standard dose constraints to OARs. Dosimetry variables for the new cardiac-optimized VMAT plans were compared via paired t test with the original VMAT plans. IMPT plans were also created, and the cardiac-optimized VMAT plans were then similarly compared with the IMPT plans. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients who were treated from July 2013 to September 2017 were included. Compared with the original VMAT plans, statistically significant improvements were demonstrated for all cardiac structures for the new cardiac-optimized VMAT plans while maintaining or improving appropriate lung, esophagus, and spinal cord constraints and planning target volume coverage goals. Compared with cardiac-optimized VMAT, IMPT demonstrated additional statistically significant improvements for some cardiac dosimetry metrics while maintaining or improving other thoracic OAR constraints. CONCLUSIONS: VMAT is now widely available, and high-quality VMAT plans that incorporate cardiac substructures into the optimization process can provide overall improvements in dose to OARs and, in particular, substantial sparing of critical cardiac structures. IMPT provides some incremental dosimetric improvements beyond cardiac-optimized VMAT, the clinical significance of which remains uncertain.
Authors: Mary Feng; Jean M Moran; Todd Koelling; Aamer Chughtai; June L Chan; Laura Freedman; James A Hayman; Reshma Jagsi; Shruti Jolly; Janice Larouere; Julie Soriano; Robin Marsh; Lori J Pierce Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lawrence B Marks; Xiaoli Yu; Robert G Prosnitz; Su-Min Zhou; Patricia H Hardenbergh; Michael Blazing; Donna Hollis; Pehr Lind; Andrea Tisch; Terence Z Wong; Salvador Borges-Neto Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christina K Speirs; Todd A DeWees; Sana Rehman; Alerson Molotievschi; Maria A Velez; Daniel Mullen; Sandra Fergus; Marco Trovo; Jeffrey D Bradley; Cliff G Robinson Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-10-12 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Daniel R Gomez; Syed Wamique Yusuf; Mark F Munsell; James W Welsh; Zhongxing Liao; Steven H Lin; Hubert Y Pan; Joe Y Chang; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Mary Frances McAleer; David R Grosshans Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Jeffrey D Bradley; Rebecca Paulus; Ritsuko Komaki; Gregory Masters; George Blumenschein; Steven Schild; Jeffrey Bogart; Chen Hu; Kenneth Forster; Anthony Magliocco; Vivek Kavadi; Yolanda I Garces; Samir Narayan; Puneeth Iyengar; Cliff Robinson; Raymond B Wynn; Christopher Koprowski; Joanne Meng; Jonathan Beitler; Rakesh Gaur; Walter Curran; Hak Choy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Sarah C Darby; Marianne Ewertz; Paul McGale; Anna M Bennet; Ulla Blom-Goldman; Dorthe Brønnum; Candace Correa; David Cutter; Giovanna Gagliardi; Bruna Gigante; Maj-Britt Jensen; Andrew Nisbet; Richard Peto; Kazem Rahimi; Carolyn Taylor; Per Hall Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Naresh Jegadeesh; Yuan Liu; Theresa Gillespie; Felix Fernandez; Suresh Ramalingam; John Mikell; Joseph Lipscomb; Walter J Curran; Kristin A Higgins Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Ebbe L Lorenzen; Carolyn W Taylor; Maja Maraldo; Mette H Nielsen; Birgitte V Offersen; Maria R Andersen; Dean O'Dwyer; Lone Larsen; Sharon Duxbury; Baljit Jhitta; Sarah C Darby; Marianne Ewertz; Carsten Brink Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Louise Turtle; Neeraj Bhalla; Andrew Willett; Robert Biggar; Jonathan Leadbetter; Georgios Georgiou; James M Wilson; Sindu Vivekanandan; Maria A Hawkins; Michael Brada; John D Fenwick Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Eric D Morris; Ahmed I Ghanem; Simeng Zhu; Ming Dong; Milan V Pantelic; Carri K Glide-Hurst Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-04-16
Authors: Eric D Morris; Kate Aldridge; Ahmed I Ghanem; Simeng Zhu; Carri K Glide-Hurst Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-10-18 Impact factor: 2.243