PURPOSE/OBJECTIVESS: We sought to determine the rate of brachial plexopathy (BPX) in patients exceeding RTOG dose constraints for treatment of apical lung tumors. MATERIALS/ METHODS: Patients with apical lung tumors treated with four- or five-fraction SBRT were identified from a prospective registry. Dosimetric data were obtained for ipsilateral subclavian vein (SCV) and anatomic BP (ABP) contours. Cumulative equivalent dose in 2 Gy equivalents (EQD2) was calculated for the SCV contour in patients with a history of prior ipsilateral RT. Five-fraction SBRT RTOG constraints of D0.03cc ≤32.0 Gy and D3cc ≤30.0 Gy were used. BPX was graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 3.0. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients met inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 21 months. Six patients (9.4%) had prior ipsilateral conventional fractionated RT with varying degrees of overlap with subsequent SBRT field. Eleven patients without prior ipsilateral RT exceeded D0.03cc ≤32.0 Gy to SCV (mean 43.8 Gy ± 5.8). No BPX was observed in these patients. Out of the six patients who had prior ipsilateral RT, three patients exceeded D0.03cc ≤32.0 Gy to SCV (44.2 Gy ± 11.3), with two of these patients developing Grade 2 BPX within one year of SBRT. The EQD2 cumulative maximum point dose to BP was 122.6 Gy and 184.7 Gy for the two patients who developed Grade 2 BPX. The D0.03cc was >10 Gy higher to the ABP contour than the SCV contour in 14 patients. CONCLUSION: Without a history of prior ipsilateral RT, no BPX was observed at 21 month follow-up in 11 patients who exceeded the RTOG five-fraction BP constraint. This observation is hypothesis generating and more experience with longer follow-up is necessary to validate these findings. For tumors located in close proximity to apical structures, there was substantial variation in dose between the ABP and SCV contours.
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVESS: We sought to determine the rate of brachial plexopathy (BPX) in patients exceeding RTOG dose constraints for treatment of apical lung tumors. MATERIALS/ METHODS: Patients with apical lung tumors treated with four- or five-fraction SBRT were identified from a prospective registry. Dosimetric data were obtained for ipsilateral subclavian vein (SCV) and anatomic BP (ABP) contours. Cumulative equivalent dose in 2 Gy equivalents (EQD2) was calculated for the SCV contour in patients with a history of prior ipsilateral RT. Five-fraction SBRT RTOG constraints of D0.03cc ≤32.0 Gy and D3cc ≤30.0 Gy were used. BPX was graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 3.0. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients met inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 21 months. Six patients (9.4%) had prior ipsilateral conventional fractionated RT with varying degrees of overlap with subsequent SBRT field. Eleven patients without prior ipsilateral RT exceeded D0.03cc ≤32.0 Gy to SCV (mean 43.8 Gy ± 5.8). No BPX was observed in these patients. Out of the six patients who had prior ipsilateral RT, three patients exceeded D0.03cc ≤32.0 Gy to SCV (44.2 Gy ± 11.3), with two of these patients developing Grade 2 BPX within one year of SBRT. The EQD2 cumulative maximum point dose to BP was 122.6 Gy and 184.7 Gy for the two patients who developed Grade 2 BPX. The D0.03cc was >10 Gy higher to the ABP contour than the SCV contour in 14 patients. CONCLUSION: Without a history of prior ipsilateral RT, no BPX was observed at 21 month follow-up in 11 patients who exceeded the RTOG five-fraction BP constraint. This observation is hypothesis generating and more experience with longer follow-up is necessary to validate these findings. For tumors located in close proximity to apical structures, there was substantial variation in dose between the ABP and SCV contours.
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: Arya Amini; Jinzhong Yang; Ryan Williamson; Michelle L McBurney; Jeremy Erasmus; Pamela K Allen; Mandar Karhade; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao; Daniel Gomez; James Cox; Lei Dong; James Welsh Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: William H Hall; Michael Guiou; Nancy Y Lee; Arthur Dublin; Samir Narayan; Srinivasan Vijayakumar; James A Purdy; Allen M Chen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-04-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Allen M Chen; William H Hall; Judy Li; Laurel Beckett; D Gregory Farwell; Derick H Lau; James A Purdy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrea Bezjak; Rebecca Paulus; Laurie E Gaspar; Robert D Timmerman; William L Straube; William F Ryan; Yolanda I Garces; Anthony T Pu; Anurag K Singh; Gregory M Videtic; Ronald C McGarry; Puneeth Iyengar; Jason R Pantarotto; James J Urbanic; Alexander Y Sun; Megan E Daly; Inga S Grills; Paul Sperduto; Daniel P Normolle; Jeffrey D Bradley; Hak Choy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kevin L Stephans; Neil M Woody; Chandana A Reddy; Matthew Varley; Anthony Magnelli; Tingliang Zhuang; Peng Qi; Gregory M M Videtic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-10-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeffrey A Forquer; Achilles J Fakiris; Robert D Timmerman; Simon S Lo; Susan M Perkins; Ronald C McGarry; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-05-18 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Joanne S Haviland; J Roger Owen; John A Dewar; Rajiv K Agrawal; Jane Barrett; Peter J Barrett-Lee; H Jane Dobbs; Penelope Hopwood; Pat A Lawton; Brian J Magee; Judith Mills; Sandra Simmons; Mark A Sydenham; Karen Venables; Judith M Bliss; John R Yarnold Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 41.316