Bradford S Hoppe1, James E Bates2, Nancy P Mendenhall2, Christopher G Morris2, Debbie Louis3, Meng Wei Ho3, Richard T Hoppe4, Marwan Shaikh5, Zuofeng Li2, Stella Flampouri2. 1. Mayo Clinic Florida, Department of Radiation Oncology, Jacksonville, Florida. Electronic address: hoppe.bradford@mayo.edu. 2. University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, Florida; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida. 3. University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, Florida. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 5. Department of Hematology/Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Mean heart dose (MHD) correlates with late cardiac toxicity among survivors of lymphoma receiving involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT). We investigated MHD and cardiac substructure dose across older and newer radiation fields and techniques to understand the value of evaluating MHD alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS: After institutional review board approval, we developed a database of dosimetry plans for 40 patients with mediastinal lymphoma, which included IFRT (anterior-posterior and posterior-anterior), involved-site radiation therapy (ISRT) + 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), ISRT + intensity modulated radiation therapy, and ISRT + proton therapy plans for each patient. Each plan was evaluated for dose to the heart and cardiac substructures, including the right and left ventricles (RV, LV) and atria (RA, LA); tricuspid, mitral (MV), and aortic valves; and left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD). Correlation between MHD and cardiac substructure dose was assessed with linear regression. A correlation was considered very strong, strong, moderate, or weak if the r was ≥0.8, 0.6-0.79, 0.4-0.59, or <0.4, respectively. RESULTS: A very strong correlation was observed between MHD and the mean cardiac substructure dose for each plan as follows: IFRT-LV, RV, LA, MV and LAD; ISRT + 3DCRT-LV, RV, MV, TV, and LA; ISRT + intensity modulated radiation therapy-LV and RV; ISRT + proton therapy-none. The following strong correlations were observed: IFRT-RA; ISRT + 3DCRT-LAD, RA, AV; ISRT + IMRT-LA, RA, LAD, AV, TV, and MV; ISRT + proton therapy-LV only. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of mediastinal lymphoma, more conformal treatment techniques can lead to more heterogeneous dose distributions across the heart, which translate into weaker relationships between mean heart dose and mean cardiac substructure doses. Consequently, models for assessing the risk of cardiac toxicity after radiation therapy that rely on MHD can be misleading when using modern treatment fields and techniques. Contouring the cardiac substructures and evaluating their dose is important when using contemporary RT.
PURPOSE: Mean heart dose (MHD) correlates with late cardiac toxicity among survivors of lymphoma receiving involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT). We investigated MHD and cardiac substructure dose across older and newer radiation fields and techniques to understand the value of evaluating MHD alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS: After institutional review board approval, we developed a database of dosimetry plans for 40 patients with mediastinal lymphoma, which included IFRT (anterior-posterior and posterior-anterior), involved-site radiation therapy (ISRT) + 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), ISRT + intensity modulated radiation therapy, and ISRT + proton therapy plans for each patient. Each plan was evaluated for dose to the heart and cardiac substructures, including the right and left ventricles (RV, LV) and atria (RA, LA); tricuspid, mitral (MV), and aortic valves; and left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD). Correlation between MHD and cardiac substructure dose was assessed with linear regression. A correlation was considered very strong, strong, moderate, or weak if the r was ≥0.8, 0.6-0.79, 0.4-0.59, or <0.4, respectively. RESULTS: A very strong correlation was observed between MHD and the mean cardiac substructure dose for each plan as follows: IFRT-LV, RV, LA, MV and LAD; ISRT + 3DCRT-LV, RV, MV, TV, and LA; ISRT + intensity modulated radiation therapy-LV and RV; ISRT + proton therapy-none. The following strong correlations were observed: IFRT-RA; ISRT + 3DCRT-LAD, RA, AV; ISRT + IMRT-LA, RA, LAD, AV, TV, and MV; ISRT + proton therapy-LV only. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of mediastinal lymphoma, more conformal treatment techniques can lead to more heterogeneous dose distributions across the heart, which translate into weaker relationships between mean heart dose and mean cardiac substructure doses. Consequently, models for assessing the risk of cardiac toxicity after radiation therapy that rely on MHD can be misleading when using modern treatment fields and techniques. Contouring the cardiac substructures and evaluating their dose is important when using contemporary RT.
Authors: Anni Young Lundgaard; Lisa Lyngsie Hjalgrim; Laura Ann Rechner; Michael Lundemann; N Patrik Brodin; Morten Joergensen; Lena Specht; Maja Vestmoe Maraldo Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Shahed N Badiyan; Lindsay L Puckett; Gregory Vlacich; Walter Schiffer; Lauren N Pedersen; Joshua D Mitchell; Carmen Bergom Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol Date: 2022-09-10
Authors: Suman Shrestha; James E Bates; Qi Liu; Susan A Smith; Kevin C Oeffinger; Eric J Chow; Aashish C Gupta; Constance A Owens; Louis S Constine; Bradford S Hoppe; Wendy M Leisenring; Ying Qiao; Rita E Weathers; Laurence E Court; Chelsea C Pinnix; Stephen F Kry; Daniel A Mulrooney; Gregory T Armstrong; Yutaka Yasui; Rebecca M Howell Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 6.901
Authors: Andrea Riccardo Filippi; Sofia Meregalli; Anna DI Russo; Mario Levis; Patrizia Ciammella; Michela Buglione; Andrea Emanuele Guerini; Giuseppina De Marco; Vitaliana De Sanctis; Stefano Vagge; Umberto Ricardi; Gabriele Simontacchi Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Robert Neil Finnegan; Lucia Orlandini; Xiongfei Liao; Jun Yin; Jinyi Lang; Jason Dowling; Davide Fontanarosa Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Georgios Ntentas; Katerina Dedeckova; Michal Andrlik; Marianne C Aznar; Rebecca Shakir; Johanna Ramroth; Rubina Begum; Jiří Kubeš; Sarah C Darby; N George Mikhaeel; David J Cutter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David J Cutter; Johanna Ramroth; Patricia Diez; Andy Buckle; Georgios Ntentas; Bilyana Popova; Laura Clifton-Hadley; Peter J Hoskin; Sarah C Darby; John Radford; Tim Illidge Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 50.717
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