Sarit Appel1, Jair Bar2, Dror Alezra1, Maoz Ben-Ayun1, Tatiana Rabin-Alezra3, Nir Honig1, Tamar Katzman1, Sumit Chatterji4, Zvi Symon1,5, Yaacov Richard Lawrence1,5. 1. Radiation Oncology, Institute Of Oncology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center affiliated to Tel Aviv University, Sackler faculty of medicine, Ramat Gan, Israel. 2. Medical Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, affiliated to Tel Aviv University, Sackler faculty of medicine, Ramat Gan, Israel. 3. Radiation Oncology, Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. 4. Department of Pulmonology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center affiliated to Tel Aviv University, Sackler faculty of medicine, Israel, Ramat Gan, Israel. 5. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Anatomic changes may occur during chemoradiation treatment for lung cancers, requiring adaptive replanning. Here we characterize these cases. METHODS: We retrospectively studied lung cancer cases that underwent resimulation and adaptive replanning during 1/2016-3/2019. We compared first and second CT-simulation regarding tumor location, timing of change, tumor volume, anatomical alteration and change in simulation technique. We also compared dosimetric parameters between the plans, recorded local control, and overall survival outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 281 patients, 58 underwent replanning (20.6%). Histology included small cell (22.4%) and non-small cell (77.6%). Stage III was in 91.4%. Mean radiation dose of 59.4 Gray (Gy) (range 50-66Gy).Tumor location was peribronchial in 53.5%. Timing of replanning was in the first, second and final third of the treatment course in 26%, 43% and 31% respectively. Changes in gross tumor volume were observed in 74%; mean gross tumor volume was 276.7cc vs 192.7 cc (first vs second simulation, p = 0.001). Anatomical changes were identified in 35.4% including pleural fluid accumulation, atelectasis or pneumothorax alteration. Change in simulation technique was performed in 25.9%, including breath-hold or continuous positive airway pressure.Changes in dosimetric parameters when the same technique was used: lung V20Gy 26% (standard deviation, SD 7.6) vs 25.3% (SD 6.6) (p = 0.36), mean lung dose 15.1 Gy (SD 3.7) vs 14.7Gy (SD 3.3) (p = 0.23), heart V40Gy 10.2% (SD13) vs 7.2% (SD 9.8) (p = 0.037). When simulation technique changed: lung V20Gy 30.8% (SD 8.2) vs 27.3% (SD 8) (p = 0.012), mean lung dose 17.3 Gy (SD 4.4) vs 15.3 Gy (SD 3.8) (p = 0.007), heart V40Gy 11.1% (SD 14.7) vs 6.5% (SD 6.7) (p = 0.014).2 year local control was 60.7% (95% confidence interval, 34.5-79.2%), and median overall survival was 19.7 months. CONCLUSION: Adaptive replanning of radiation was performed in a fifth of locally advanced lung cancer patients. In most cases tumor volume decreased, or atelectasis resolved, causing mediastinal shifts, which, if unidentified and left uncorrected, may have led to local failure and increased toxicity. The heart V40Gy was reduced significantly in all cases, but significant reduction in lung doses was evident only if simulation technique was altered. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: In locally advanced lung cancer image-guidance with cone beam CT can detect significant mediastinal shifts and gross tumor volume changes that raise the need for adaptive replanning. Image guidance-triggered adaptive replanning should be added to the armament of advanced radiation treatment planning in locally advanced lung cancer.
OBJECTIVES: Anatomic changes may occur during chemoradiation treatment for lung cancers, requiring adaptive replanning. Here we characterize these cases. METHODS: We retrospectively studied lung cancer cases that underwent resimulation and adaptive replanning during 1/2016-3/2019. We compared first and second CT-simulation regarding tumor location, timing of change, tumor volume, anatomical alteration and change in simulation technique. We also compared dosimetric parameters between the plans, recorded local control, and overall survival outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 281 patients, 58 underwent replanning (20.6%). Histology included small cell (22.4%) and non-small cell (77.6%). Stage III was in 91.4%. Mean radiation dose of 59.4 Gray (Gy) (range 50-66Gy).Tumor location was peribronchial in 53.5%. Timing of replanning was in the first, second and final third of the treatment course in 26%, 43% and 31% respectively. Changes in gross tumor volume were observed in 74%; mean gross tumor volume was 276.7cc vs 192.7 cc (first vs second simulation, p = 0.001). Anatomical changes were identified in 35.4% including pleural fluid accumulation, atelectasis or pneumothorax alteration. Change in simulation technique was performed in 25.9%, including breath-hold or continuous positive airway pressure.Changes in dosimetric parameters when the same technique was used: lung V20Gy 26% (standard deviation, SD 7.6) vs 25.3% (SD 6.6) (p = 0.36), mean lung dose 15.1 Gy (SD 3.7) vs 14.7Gy (SD 3.3) (p = 0.23), heart V40Gy 10.2% (SD13) vs 7.2% (SD 9.8) (p = 0.037). When simulation technique changed: lung V20Gy 30.8% (SD 8.2) vs 27.3% (SD 8) (p = 0.012), mean lung dose 17.3 Gy (SD 4.4) vs 15.3 Gy (SD 3.8) (p = 0.007), heart V40Gy 11.1% (SD 14.7) vs 6.5% (SD 6.7) (p = 0.014).2 year local control was 60.7% (95% confidence interval, 34.5-79.2%), and median overall survival was 19.7 months. CONCLUSION: Adaptive replanning of radiation was performed in a fifth of locally advanced lung cancer patients. In most cases tumor volume decreased, or atelectasis resolved, causing mediastinal shifts, which, if unidentified and left uncorrected, may have led to local failure and increased toxicity. The heart V40Gy was reduced significantly in all cases, but significant reduction in lung doses was evident only if simulation technique was altered. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: In locally advanced lung cancer image-guidance with cone beam CT can detect significant mediastinal shifts and gross tumor volume changes that raise the need for adaptive replanning. Image guidance-triggered adaptive replanning should be added to the armament of advanced radiation treatment planning in locally advanced lung cancer.
Authors: Jana Fox; Eric Ford; Kristin Redmond; Jessica Zhou; John Wong; Danny Y Song Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lauren E Henke; Rojano Kashani; Jessica Hilliard; Todd A DeWees; Austen Curcuru; Daniel Przybysz; Olga Green; Clifford G Robinson; Jeffrey D Bradley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eva E Schaake; Maddalena M G Rossi; Wieneke A Buikhuisen; Jacobus A Burgers; Adrianus A J Smit; José S A Belderbos; Jan-Jakob Sonke Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-10-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tim Lustberg; Johan van Soest; Mark Gooding; Devis Peressutti; Paul Aljabar; Judith van der Stoep; Wouter van Elmpt; Andre Dekker Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Scott J Antonia; Augusto Villegas; Davey Daniel; David Vicente; Shuji Murakami; Rina Hui; Takayasu Kurata; Alberto Chiappori; Ki H Lee; Maike de Wit; Byoung C Cho; Maryam Bourhaba; Xavier Quantin; Takaaki Tokito; Tarek Mekhail; David Planchard; Young-Chul Kim; Christos S Karapetis; Sandrine Hiret; Gyula Ostoros; Kaoru Kubota; Jhanelle E Gray; Luis Paz-Ares; Javier de Castro Carpeño; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Martin Reck; Johan Vansteenkiste; David R Spigel; Catherine Wadsworth; Giovanni Melillo; Maria Taboada; Phillip A Dennis; Mustafa Özgüroğlu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Laura K McNew; Stephen R Bowen; Olga Gopan; Matthew J Nyflot; Shilpen A Patel; Jing Zeng; Ramesh Rengan Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-02-01