Monitoring skin dose changes during image-guided helical tomotherapy for head and neck cancer patients.
Überwachung von Veränderungen der Hautdosis während der bildgesteuerten helikalen Tomotherapie bei Patienten mit Kopf-Hals-Tumoren.
Adaptive radiotherapy
Head and neck cancer
Radiotherapy planning
Skin toxicity
Tomotherapy
Journal
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]
ISSN: 1439-099X
Titre abrégé: Strahlenther Onkol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8603469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
15
05
2019
accepted:
10
09
2019
pubmed:
6
10
2019
medline:
27
11
2020
entrez:
6
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
An increase of skin dose during head and neck cancer (HNC) radiotherapy is potentially dangerous. Aim of this study was to quantify skin dose variation and to assess the need of planning adaptation (ART) to counteract it. Planning CTs of 32 patients treated with helical tomotherapy (HT) according to a Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB) technique delivering 54/66 Gy in 30 fractions were deformably co-registered to MVCTs taken at fractions 15 and 30; in addition, the first fraction was also considered. The delivered dose-of-the-day was calculated on the corresponding deformed images. Superficial body layers (SL) were considered as a surrogate for skin, considering a layer thickness of 2 mm. Variations of SL DVH (∆SL) during therapy were quantified, focusing on ∆SL95% (i.e., 62.7 Gy). Small changes (within ± 1 cc for ∆SL95%) were seen in 15/32 patients. Only 2 patients experienced ∆SL95% > 1 cc in at least one of the two monitored fractions. Negative ∆SL95% > 1 cc (up to 17 cc) were much more common (15/32 patients). The trend of skin dose changes was mostly detected at the first fraction. Negative changes were correlated with the presence of any overlap between PTV and SL at planning and were explained in terms of how the planning system optimizes the PTV dose coverage near the skin. Acute toxicity was associated with planning DVH and this association was not improved if considering DVHs referring to fractions 15/30. About half of the patients treated with SIB with HT for HNC experienced a skin-sparing effect during therapy; only 6% experienced an increase. Our findings do not support skin-sparing ART, while suggesting the introduction of improved skin-sparing planning techniques. ZWECK: Eine Erhöhung der Hautdosis während der Strahlentherapie von Kopf-Hals-Tumoren (HNC) ist potenziell gefährlich. Das Ziel dieser Studie war es, die Änderung der Hautdosis zu quantifizieren und den Bedarf einer Plananpassung (ART) zu bewerten, um dieser entgegenzuwirken. Planungs-CTs von 32 Patienten, die mittels helikaler Tomotherapie (HT) in einer „Simultaneous Integrated Boost“(SIB)-Technik mit 54/66 Gy bei 30 Fraktionen behandelt wurden, wurden nichtrigide registriert mit MVCTs, die bei Fraktion 15, 30 gefahren wurden; zusätzlich wurde auch die erste Fraktion berücksichtigt. Die verabreichte Tagesdosis wurde auf den entsprechenden deformierten Bildern berechnet. Die äußersten Schichten (SL) wurden als Ersatz für die Haut angesehen, mit einer Schichtdicke von 2 mm. Änderungen der SL-DVH (∆SL) während der Therapie wurden quantifiziert, mit einem Fokus auf ∆SL95 % (d. h. 62,7 Gy). Kleine Änderungen (innerhalb ± 1 cc für ∆SL95 %) ergaben sich bei 15 von 32 Patienten. Bei nur 2 Patienten wurde ein ∆SL95 % > 1 cc in mindestens einer der beiden überwachten Fraktionen beobachtet. Negative ∆SL95 % > 1 cc (bis zu 17 cc) waren weit häufiger (15 von 32). Der Trend von Hautdosisänderungen wurde zumeist bei der ersten Fraktion festgestellt. Negative Änderungen korrelierten mit der Anwesenheit einer Überlappung von PTV und SL bei der Planung und wurden dahingehend erklärt, wie das Planungssystem die PTV-Dosisabdeckung in der Nähe der Haut optimiert. Eine akute Toxizität war auf das Planungs-DVH zurückzuführen; dies wurde unter Berücksichtigung von DVH bei Fraktion 15 bzw. 30 nicht verbessert. Bei etwa der Hälfte der Patienten, die in SIB-Technik mittels HT für HNC behandelt wurden, ergab sich eine Hautschonung während der Therapie; nur 6 % erfuhren einen Anstieg. Unsere Erkenntnisse unterstützen keine hautschonende Plananpassung (ART), schlagen jedoch die Einführung verbesserter hautschonender Planungstechniken vor.
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(ger)
ZWECK: Eine Erhöhung der Hautdosis während der Strahlentherapie von Kopf-Hals-Tumoren (HNC) ist potenziell gefährlich. Das Ziel dieser Studie war es, die Änderung der Hautdosis zu quantifizieren und den Bedarf einer Plananpassung (ART) zu bewerten, um dieser entgegenzuwirken.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31586231
doi: 10.1007/s00066-019-01520-y
pii: 10.1007/s00066-019-01520-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
243-251Références
Lohia S, Rajapurkar M, Nguyen SA et al (2014) A comparison of outcomes using intensity-modulated radiation therapy and 3‑dimensional conformal radiation therapy in treatment of oropharyngeal cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 140(4):331–337
doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2013.6777
Hunter KU, Schipper M, Feng F et al (2013) Toxicities affecting quality of life after chemo-IMRT of oropharyngeal cancer: Prospective study of patient-reported, observer-rated, and objective outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85(4):935–940
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.030
Bibault JE, Dussart S, Giraud P et al (2017) Clinical outcomes of several IMRT techniques for patients with head and neck cancer: a propensity score-weighted analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 99(4):929–937
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.2456
Turesson I, Thames HD (1989) Repair capacity and kinetics of human skin during fractionated radiotherapy: erythema, desquamation, and telangiectasia after 3 and 5 year’s follow-up. Radiother Oncol 15:169–188
doi: 10.1016/0167-8140(89)90131-X
Bray FN, Simmons BJ, Wolfson AH et al (2016) Acute and chronic cutaneous reactions to ionizing radiation therapy. Dermatol Ther 6(2):185–206
doi: 10.1007/s13555-016-0120-y
Bonomo P, Loi M, Desideri I et al (2017) Incidence of skin toxicity in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck treated with radiotherapy and cetuximab: A systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 120:98–110
doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.10.011
Radaideh KM, Matalqah LM (2016) Predictors of radiation-induced skin toxicity in nasopharyngeal cancer patients treated by intensity-modulated radiation therapy: A prospective study. J Radiother Pract 15(3):276–282
doi: 10.1017/S1460396916000108
Nevens D, Duprez F, Daisne JF et al (2017) Radiotherapy induced dermatitis is a strong predictor for late fibrosis in head and neck cancer. The development of predictive model for late fibrosis. Radiother Oncol 122:212–217
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.08.013
Studer G, Brown M, Glanzmann C et al (2011) Grade 3/4 dermatitis in head and neck cancer patients treated with concurrent cetuximab and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:110–117
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.05.018
Von Essen CF (1963) A spatial model of time-dose-area relationships in radiation therapy. Radiology 81:881–883
doi: 10.1148/81.5.881
Fu HJ, Li CW, Tsai WT et al (2017) Skin dose for head and neck cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy(IMRT). Radiat Phys Chem 140:435–441
doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2017.02.017
Wong RKS, Bensadoun RJ, Boers-Doets CB et al (2013) Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of acute and late radiation reactions from the MASCC Skin Toxicity Study Group. Support Care Cancer 21(10):2933–2948
doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1896-2
Russi EG, Moretto F, Rampino M et al (2015) Acute skin toxicity management in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy or EGFR inhibitors: literature review and consensus. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 96(1):167–182
doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.06.001
Siddiqui F, Movsas B (2017) Management of radiation toxicity in head and neck cancers. Semin Radiat Oncol 27(4):340–349
doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2017.04.008
Fiorino C, Dell’Oca I, Pierelli A et al (2006) Significant improvement in normal tissue sparing and target coverage for head and neck cancer by means of helical tomotherapy. Radiother Oncol 78(3):276–282
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2006.02.009
Castadot P, Lee JA, Geets X et al (2010) Adaptive radiotherapy of head and neck cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 20(2):84–93
doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2009.11.002
Zani M, Talamonti C, Bucciolini M et al (2016) In phantom assessment of superficial doses under TomoTherapy irradiation. Phys Med 32:1263–1270
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.09.017
Schwartz DL, Garden AS, Shah SJ et al (2013) Adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer—dosimetric results from a prospective clinical trial. Radiother Oncol 106(1):80–84
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2012.10.010
Veiga C, McClelland J, Moinuddin S et al (2014) Toward adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck patients: feasibility study on using CT-to-CBCT deformable registration for “dose of the day” calculations. Med Phys 41(3):31703
doi: 10.1118/1.4864240
Elstrøm UV, Wysocka BA, Muren LP et al (2010) Daily kV cone-beam CT and deformable image registration as a method for studying dosimetric consequences of anatomic changes in adaptive IMRT of head and neck cancer. Acta Oncol 49(7):1101–1108
doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2010.500304
Branchini M, Fiorino C, Dell’Oca I et al (2017) Validation of a method for “dose-of-the-day” calculation in head-neck tomotherapy by using planning CT-to-MVCT deformable image registration. Phys Med 39:73–79
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.05.070
Branchini M, Broggi S, Dell’Oca I et al (2018) Skin dose calculation during radiotherapy of head and neck cancer using deformable image registration of planning and mega-voltage computed tomography scan. PhiRO 8:44–50
Merlotti A, Alterio D, Vigna-taglianti R et al (2014) Technical guidelines for head and neck cancer IMRT on behalf of the Italian association of radiation oncology—head and neck working group. Radiat Oncol 9:264
doi: 10.1186/s13014-014-0264-9
Fiorino C, Dell’Oca I, Pierelli A et al (2007) Simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for nasopharynx cancer with helical tomotherapy, a planning study. Strahlenther Onkol 183(9):497–505
doi: 10.1007/s00066-007-1698-x
Widesott L, Pierelli A, Fiorino C et al (2008) Intensity-modulated proton therapy versus helical tomotherapy in nasopharynx cancer: planning comparison and NTCP evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72(2):589–596
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.05.065
Hopewell JW (1990) The skin: its structure and response to ionizing radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57(4):751–773
doi: 10.1080/09553009014550911
Tournel K, Verellen D, Duchateau M et al (2007) An assessment of the use of skin flashes in helical tomotherapy using phantom and in-vivo dosimetry. Radiother Oncol 84:34–39
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2007.06.003
Avanzo M, Drigo A, Ren Kaiser S et al (2013) Dose to the skin in helical tomotherapy: Results of in vivo measurements with radiochromic films. Phys Med 29(3):304–311
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2012.04.004
Sini C, Noris Chiorda B, Gabriele P et al (2017) Patient-reported intestinal toxicity from whole pelvis intensity-modulated radiotherapy: first quantification of bowel dose—volume effects. Radiother Oncol 124:296–301
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.07.005
https://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03/Archive/CTCAE_4.0_2009-05-29_QuickReference_8.5x11.pdf . Last access: 02/02/2019
Sick J, Fontenot J (2018) The air out there: treatment planning when target volumes extend beyond the skin. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 101:1025–1026
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.03.019
Mori M, Cattaneo GM, Dell’ Oca I et al (2019) Skin DVHs predict cutaneous toxicities in Head and Neck Cancer patients treated with Tomotherapy. Phys Med 59:133–141
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.02.015