Michaela Beavan1,2,3, Kylie Dundas2,3,4, Felicity Hudson2,4, Yolanda Surjan1, Annie Lau2, Shrikant Deshpande2,4, Karen Lim2,4, Viet Do2,4. 1. Medical Radiation Science (MRS), School of Health Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, South West Sydney Local Health District, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced cervical and vaginal cancer. It is associated with high haematological toxicity (HT) that can lead to treatment interruptions and cancelled chemotherapy cycles, reducing the potential effectiveness of this regimen. Bone marrow sparing (BMS) utilising volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is one method to reduce dose to the active bone marrow (ABM) so that HT rates are reduced. The aim of this paper was to assess whether BMS-VMAT can effectively spare the ABM whilst maintaining clinically acceptable target and organ-at-risk (OAR) doses. METHODS: Twenty gynaecological cancer patients treated with definitive CRT at the Liverpool/Macarthur Cancer Therapy centres between 2015 and 2020 were retrospectively included. ABM was delineated based on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging. Weekly blood tests and ABM dose parameters at the V10Gy, V20Gy, V30Gy, V40Gy and Dmean were assessed on original plans for any potential correlation with grade 2+ HT. Replanned with VMAT for BMS, various dose parameters were compared with the original plan to assess for any significant differences. RESULTS: Active bone marrow doses were significantly reduced (P < 0.001 for all parameters) in BMS-VMAT plans, and significant improvements in target and OAR coverage were found compared with the original plans. Compared with VMAT only, target and OARs were comparable. No significant correlations between HT and ABM doses were found. CONCLUSION: Bone marrow sparing volumetric modulated arc therapy can significantly reduce dose to the active bone marrow whilst maintaining acceptable target and OAR doses. Future prospective trials are needed to evaluate the clinical impact of BMS on toxicity and compliance.
INTRODUCTION: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced cervical and vaginal cancer. It is associated with high haematological toxicity (HT) that can lead to treatment interruptions and cancelled chemotherapy cycles, reducing the potential effectiveness of this regimen. Bone marrow sparing (BMS) utilising volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is one method to reduce dose to the active bone marrow (ABM) so that HT rates are reduced. The aim of this paper was to assess whether BMS-VMAT can effectively spare the ABM whilst maintaining clinically acceptable target and organ-at-risk (OAR) doses. METHODS: Twenty gynaecological cancer patients treated with definitive CRT at the Liverpool/Macarthur Cancer Therapy centres between 2015 and 2020 were retrospectively included. ABM was delineated based on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging. Weekly blood tests and ABM dose parameters at the V10Gy, V20Gy, V30Gy, V40Gy and Dmean were assessed on original plans for any potential correlation with grade 2+ HT. Replanned with VMAT for BMS, various dose parameters were compared with the original plan to assess for any significant differences. RESULTS: Active bone marrow doses were significantly reduced (P < 0.001 for all parameters) in BMS-VMAT plans, and significant improvements in target and OAR coverage were found compared with the original plans. Compared with VMAT only, target and OARs were comparable. No significant correlations between HT and ABM doses were found. CONCLUSION: Bone marrow sparing volumetric modulated arc therapy can significantly reduce dose to the active bone marrow whilst maintaining acceptable target and OAR doses. Future prospective trials are needed to evaluate the clinical impact of BMS on toxicity and compliance.
Authors: Brent S Rose; Yun Liang; Steven K Lau; Lindsay G Jensen; Catheryn M Yashar; Carl K Hoh; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Olgun Elicin; Sharon Callaway; John O Prior; Jean Bourhis; Mahmut Ozsahin; Fernanda G Herrera Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Brent S Rose; Bulent Aydogan; Yun Liang; Mete Yeginer; Michael D Hasselle; Virag Dandekar; Rounak Bafana; Catheryn M Yashar; Arno J Mundt; John C Roeske; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Loren K Mell; Igor Sirák; Lichun Wei; Rafal Tarnawski; Umesh Mahantshetty; Catheryn M Yashar; Michael T McHale; Ronghui Xu; Gordon Honerkamp-Smith; Ruben Carmona; Mary Wright; Casey W Williamson; Linda Kasaová; Nan Li; Stephen Kry; Jeff Michalski; Walter Bosch; William Straube; Julie Schwarz; Jessica Lowenstein; Steve B Jiang; Cheryl C Saenz; Steve Plaxe; John Einck; Chonlakiet Khorprasert; Paul Koonings; Terry Harrison; Mei Shi; A J Mundt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sarah M McGuire; Sudershan K Bhatia; Wenqing Sun; Geraldine M Jacobson; Yusuf Menda; Laura L Ponto; Brian J Smith; Brandie A Gross; John E Bayouth; John J Sunderland; Michael M Graham; John M Buatti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Richard Pötter; Kari Tanderup; Christian Kirisits; Astrid de Leeuw; Kathrin Kirchheiner; Remi Nout; Li Tee Tan; Christine Haie-Meder; Umesh Mahantshetty; Barbara Segedin; Peter Hoskin; Kjersti Bruheim; Bhavana Rai; Fleur Huang; Erik Van Limbergen; Max Schmid; Nicole Nesvacil; Alina Sturdza; Lars Fokdal; Nina Boje Kibsgaard Jensen; Dietmar Georg; Marianne Assenholt; Yvette Seppenwoolde; Christel Nomden; Israel Fortin; Supriya Chopra; Uulke van der Heide; Tamara Rumpold; Jacob Christian Lindegaard; Ina Jürgenliemk-Schulz Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-01-11