Impact of small residual setup errors after image guidance on heart dose and survival in non-small cell lung cancer treated with curative-intent radiotherapy.
Heart dose
Image-based data-mining
NSCLC
Radiotherapy
Residual setup errors
Journal
Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
ISSN: 1879-0887
Titre abrégé: Radiother Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8407192
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
received:
01
10
2019
revised:
07
04
2020
accepted:
08
04
2020
pubmed:
4
5
2020
medline:
15
4
2021
entrez:
4
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A recent study of NSCLC patients showed small residual setup errors (shifts) in the direction of the heart following image-guidance were significantly related to overall survival. This study of the dosimetric effects of these residual shifts investigates the hypothesis that observed survival differences were related to a change in heart dose. Accumulated doses including shifts for each fraction were determined for 475 NSCLC patients. Planning CTs and corresponding dose distributions were deformed to a reference. Image-based data-mining techniques were then applied to the difference between the planned and accumulated dose (Δdose) to determine where Δdose relates to 1-year survival. The significance of Δdose in the identified region was assessed using multivariable Cox analysis. The cohort was then split into octiles, based upon planned dose to the region, and multivariable Cox analysis performed for each sub-cohort to explore the dose response relationship. The identified dose threshold for damage was then tested in an independent validation cohort of 1482 NSCLC patients from the same institution. Permutation testing identified a small region in the heart base where Δdose significantly correlated with 1-year survival. Δdose in this region showed no correlation with common clinical variables, and was significant in multivariable Cox regression (p < 0.001, hazard ratio 1.221/Gy), with increasing change in dose from plan resulting in greater risk of death. Octile analysis revealed Δdose to be significant only in the 7th octile, planning dose 16.2-23.4 Gy, suggesting a steep dose-effect relation for heart damage in this range. Taking 16.2 Gy as a conservative threshold dose, this result was successfully validated, with a significant difference being seen between patients with a region dose above or below 16.2 Gy. This study suggests the relation between residual set-up errors and survival is explained by changes in cardiac dose, and identifies an area at the heart base where dose is correlated with survival. Our results suggest the dose threshold for cardiac damage is between 16.2 and 23.4 Gy in the base of the heart, which was validated in an independent cohort. However, the dose effect in other regions of the heart should also be investigated.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
A recent study of NSCLC patients showed small residual setup errors (shifts) in the direction of the heart following image-guidance were significantly related to overall survival. This study of the dosimetric effects of these residual shifts investigates the hypothesis that observed survival differences were related to a change in heart dose.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Accumulated doses including shifts for each fraction were determined for 475 NSCLC patients. Planning CTs and corresponding dose distributions were deformed to a reference. Image-based data-mining techniques were then applied to the difference between the planned and accumulated dose (Δdose) to determine where Δdose relates to 1-year survival. The significance of Δdose in the identified region was assessed using multivariable Cox analysis. The cohort was then split into octiles, based upon planned dose to the region, and multivariable Cox analysis performed for each sub-cohort to explore the dose response relationship. The identified dose threshold for damage was then tested in an independent validation cohort of 1482 NSCLC patients from the same institution.
RESULTS
Permutation testing identified a small region in the heart base where Δdose significantly correlated with 1-year survival. Δdose in this region showed no correlation with common clinical variables, and was significant in multivariable Cox regression (p < 0.001, hazard ratio 1.221/Gy), with increasing change in dose from plan resulting in greater risk of death. Octile analysis revealed Δdose to be significant only in the 7th octile, planning dose 16.2-23.4 Gy, suggesting a steep dose-effect relation for heart damage in this range. Taking 16.2 Gy as a conservative threshold dose, this result was successfully validated, with a significant difference being seen between patients with a region dose above or below 16.2 Gy.
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggests the relation between residual set-up errors and survival is explained by changes in cardiac dose, and identifies an area at the heart base where dose is correlated with survival. Our results suggest the dose threshold for cardiac damage is between 16.2 and 23.4 Gy in the base of the heart, which was validated in an independent cohort. However, the dose effect in other regions of the heart should also be investigated.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32360033
pii: S0167-8140(20)30189-4
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.04.008
pmc: PMC7707351
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
177-182Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C147/A18083
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C147/A25254
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Apr 1;67(5):1586-95
pubmed: 17394953
Med Dosim. 2010 Winter;35(4):287-96
pubmed: 19962877
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Oct 1;102(2):434-442
pubmed: 29908945
J Clin Oncol. 2017 May 1;35(13):1381-1383
pubmed: 28113024
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2002 Sep;21(9):1142-50
pubmed: 12564882
J Clin Oncol. 2017 May 1;35(13):1387-1394
pubmed: 28113017
J Clin Oncol. 2017 May 1;35(13):1395-1402
pubmed: 28301264
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2007 Oct;17(4):258-67
pubmed: 17903703
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Feb;16(2):187-99
pubmed: 25601342
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 May 1;68(1):253-8
pubmed: 17448878
Radiother Oncol. 2012 Feb;102(2):309-14
pubmed: 21872956
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Sep 1;99(1):51-60
pubmed: 28816160
Radiat Oncol. 2013 Dec 23;8:293
pubmed: 24365155
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Nov;85:106-113
pubmed: 28898766
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Aug 1;50(5):1350-65
pubmed: 11483348
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Mar 1;73(3):927-34
pubmed: 19095368