Weili Wang1, Martha M Matuszak2, Chen Hu3, Ke Colin Huang4, Eileen Chen1, Douglas Arenberg5, Jeffrey L Curtis6, Shruti Jolly2, Jian-Yue Jin1, Mitchell Machtay1, Randall K Ten Haken2, Feng-Ming Spring Kong7. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals/Seidman Cancer Center and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Simon Cancer Center, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine Division, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine Division, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Medical Service, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals/Seidman Cancer Center and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Clinical Oncology, Hong Kong University Shenzhen Hospital and Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong University Li Ka Shing Medical School, Hong Kong, China. Electronic address: fxk132@case.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the dosimetric risk factors for radiation-induced proximal bronchial tree (PBT) toxicity in patients treated with radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with medically inoperable or unresectable NSCLC treated with conventionally fractionated 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in prospective clinical trials were eligible for this study. Proximal bronchial tree (PBT) and PBT wall were contoured consistently per RTOG 1106 OAR-Atlas. The dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of physical prescription dose (DVHp) and biological effective dose (α/β = 2.5; DVH2.5) were generated, respectively. The primary endpoint was PBT toxicities, defined by CTCAE 4.0 under the terminology of bronchial stricture/atelectasis. RESULTS: Of 100 patients enrolled, with a median follow-up of 64 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 50-78), 73% received 70 Gy or greater and 17% developed PBT toxicity (grade 1, 8%; grade 2, 6%; grade 3, 0%; and grade 4, 3%). The median time interval between RT initiation and onset of PBT toxicity was 8.4 months (95% CI, 4.7-44.1). The combined DVHs showed that no patient with a PBT maximum physical dose <65 Gy developed any PBT toxicity. Cox proportional hazards analysis and receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that V75 of PBT was the most significant dosimetric parameter for both grade 1+ (P = .035) and grade 2+ (P = .037) PBT toxicities. The dosimetric thresholds for V75 of PBT were 6.8% and 11.9% for grade 1+ and grade 2+ PBT toxicity, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: V75 of PBT appeared be the most significant dosimetric parameter for PBT toxicity after conventionally fractionated thoracic 3DCRT. Constraining V75 of PBT can limit clinically significant PBT toxicity.
PURPOSE: To study the dosimetric risk factors for radiation-induced proximal bronchial tree (PBT) toxicity in patients treated with radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with medically inoperable or unresectable NSCLC treated with conventionally fractionated 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in prospective clinical trials were eligible for this study. Proximal bronchial tree (PBT) and PBT wall were contoured consistently per RTOG 1106 OAR-Atlas. The dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of physical prescription dose (DVHp) and biological effective dose (α/β = 2.5; DVH2.5) were generated, respectively. The primary endpoint was PBTtoxicities, defined by CTCAE 4.0 under the terminology of bronchial stricture/atelectasis. RESULTS: Of 100 patients enrolled, with a median follow-up of 64 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 50-78), 73% received 70 Gy or greater and 17% developed PBT toxicity (grade 1, 8%; grade 2, 6%; grade 3, 0%; and grade 4, 3%). The median time interval between RT initiation and onset of PBT toxicity was 8.4 months (95% CI, 4.7-44.1). The combined DVHs showed that no patient with a PBT maximum physical dose <65 Gy developed any PBT toxicity. Cox proportional hazards analysis and receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that V75 of PBT was the most significant dosimetric parameter for both grade 1+ (P = .035) and grade 2+ (P = .037) PBTtoxicities. The dosimetric thresholds for V75 of PBT were 6.8% and 11.9% for grade 1+ and grade 2+ PBT toxicity, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: V75 of PBT appeared be the most significant dosimetric parameter for PBT toxicity after conventionally fractionated thoracic 3DCRT. Constraining V75 of PBT can limit clinically significant PBT toxicity.
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: Keith L Miller; Timothy D Shafman; Mitchell S Anscher; Su-Min Zhou; Robert W Clough; Jennifer L Garst; Jeffrey Crawford; Julian Rosenman; Mark A Socinski; William Blackstock; Gregory S Sibley; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Robert D Timmerman; Rebecca Paulus; Harvey I Pass; Elizabeth M Gore; Martin J Edelman; James Galvin; William L Straube; Lucien A Nedzi; Ronald C McGarry; Cliff G Robinson; Peter B Schiff; Garrick Chang; Billy W Loo; Jeffrey D Bradley; Hak Choy Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Carrie B Lee; Thomas E Stinchcombe; Dominic T Moore; David E Morris; D Neil Hayes; Jan Halle; Julian G Rosenman; M Patricia Rivera; Mark A Socinski Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Gregory M M Videtic; Chen Hu; Anurag K Singh; Joe Y Chang; William Parker; Kenneth R Olivier; Steven E Schild; Ritsuko Komaki; James J Urbanic; Robert D Timmerman; Hak Choy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Feng-Ming Kong; Randall K Ten Haken; Matthew Schipper; Kirk A Frey; James Hayman; Milton Gross; Nithya Ramnath; Khaled A Hassan; Martha Matuszak; Timothy Ritter; Nan Bi; Weili Wang; Mark Orringer; Kemp B Cease; Theodore S Lawrence; Gregory P Kalemkerian Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Eric M Wallat; Antonia E Wuschner; Mattison J Flakus; Gary E Christensen; Joseph M Reinhardt; Dhanansayan Shanmuganayagam; John E Bayouth Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2021-10-29
Authors: Frank Van den Heuvel; Anna Vella; Francesca Fiorini; Mark Brooke; Mark Hill; Anderson Ryan; Tim Maughan; Amato Giaccia Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 4.174
Authors: Karl Wurstbauer; Margit Kazil; Marco Meinschad; Raoul Pinter; Catharina De Vries; Patrick Clemens; Christof Kreuter; Tamara Hernler; Wolfgang Hitzl; Peter Cerkl; Thomas Künzler; Alexander De Vries Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 4.309