The Distribution of Pelvic Nodal Metastases in Prostate Cancer Reveals Potential to Advance and Personalize Pelvic Radiotherapy.

lymph node metastases mapping patterns of recurrence pelvic radiotherapy prostate cancer

Journal

Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 02 08 2020
accepted: 16 11 2020
entrez: 25 1 2021
pubmed: 26 1 2021
medline: 26 1 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Traditional clinical target volume (CTV) definition for pelvic radiotherapy in prostate cancer consists of large volumes being treated with homogeneous doses without fully utilizing information on the probability of microscopic involvement to guide target volume design and prescription dose distribution. We analyzed patterns of nodal involvement in 75 patients that received RT for pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastases (LNs) from prostate cancer in regard to the new NRG-CTV recommendation. Non-rigid registration-based LN mapping and weighted three-dimensional kernel density estimation were used to visualize the average probability distribution for nodal metastases. As independent approach, the mean relative proportion of LNs observed for each level was determined manually and NRG and non-NRG levels were evaluated for frequency of involvement. Computer-automated distance measurements were used to compare LN distances in individual patients to the spatial proximity of nodal metastases at a cohort level. 34.7% of patients had pelvic LNs outside NRG-consensus, of which perirectal was most common (25.3% of all patients) followed by left common iliac nodes near the left psoas major (6.7%). A substantial portion of patients (13.3%) had nodes at the posterior edge of the NRG obturator level. Observer-independent mapping consistently visualized high-probability hotspots outside NRG-consensus in the perirectal and left common iliac regions. Affected nodes in individual patients occurred in highly significantly closer proximity than at cohort-level (mean distance, 6.6 cm vs. 8.7 cm, p < 0.001). Based on this analysis, the common iliac level should extend to the left psoas major and obturator levels should extend posteriorly 5 mm beyond the obturator internus. Incomplete coverage by the NRG-consensus was mostly because of perirectal involvement. We introduce three-dimensional kernel density estimation after non-rigid registration-based mapping for the analysis of recurrence data in radiotherapy. This technique provides an estimate of the underlying probability distribution of nodal involvement and may help in addressing institution- or subgroup-specific differences. Nodal metastases in individual patients occurred in highly significantly closer proximity than at a cohort-level, which supports that personalized target volumes could be reduced in size compared to a "one-size-fits-all" approach and is an important basis for further investigation into individualized field designs.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Traditional clinical target volume (CTV) definition for pelvic radiotherapy in prostate cancer consists of large volumes being treated with homogeneous doses without fully utilizing information on the probability of microscopic involvement to guide target volume design and prescription dose distribution.
METHODS METHODS
We analyzed patterns of nodal involvement in 75 patients that received RT for pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastases (LNs) from prostate cancer in regard to the new NRG-CTV recommendation. Non-rigid registration-based LN mapping and weighted three-dimensional kernel density estimation were used to visualize the average probability distribution for nodal metastases. As independent approach, the mean relative proportion of LNs observed for each level was determined manually and NRG and non-NRG levels were evaluated for frequency of involvement. Computer-automated distance measurements were used to compare LN distances in individual patients to the spatial proximity of nodal metastases at a cohort level.
RESULTS RESULTS
34.7% of patients had pelvic LNs outside NRG-consensus, of which perirectal was most common (25.3% of all patients) followed by left common iliac nodes near the left psoas major (6.7%). A substantial portion of patients (13.3%) had nodes at the posterior edge of the NRG obturator level. Observer-independent mapping consistently visualized high-probability hotspots outside NRG-consensus in the perirectal and left common iliac regions. Affected nodes in individual patients occurred in highly significantly closer proximity than at cohort-level (mean distance, 6.6 cm vs. 8.7 cm, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Based on this analysis, the common iliac level should extend to the left psoas major and obturator levels should extend posteriorly 5 mm beyond the obturator internus. Incomplete coverage by the NRG-consensus was mostly because of perirectal involvement. We introduce three-dimensional kernel density estimation after non-rigid registration-based mapping for the analysis of recurrence data in radiotherapy. This technique provides an estimate of the underlying probability distribution of nodal involvement and may help in addressing institution- or subgroup-specific differences. Nodal metastases in individual patients occurred in highly significantly closer proximity than at a cohort-level, which supports that personalized target volumes could be reduced in size compared to a "one-size-fits-all" approach and is an important basis for further investigation into individualized field designs.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33489887
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.590722
pmc: PMC7820617
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

590722

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Filimonova, Schmidt, Mansoorian, Weissmann, Siavooshhaghighi, Cavallaro, Kuwert, Bert, Frey, Distel, Lettmaier, Fietkau and Putz.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

CB reports grants from Siemens Healthineers, outside the submitted work. RF reports grants and personal fees from Merck Serono, grants and personal fees from Astra Zenica, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Novocure, personal fees from Brainlab, personal fees from Fresenius Kabi, personal fees from Bristol Meyers Sqibb, and personal fees from Sennewald GmbH, outside the submitted work. FP reports grants and personal fees from Siemens Healthineers, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Eur Urol. 2019 May;75(5):826-833
pubmed: 30503072
Strahlenther Onkol. 2019 May;195(5):420-429
pubmed: 30610354
Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Nov;30(9):1323-41
pubmed: 22770690
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Jun 1;74(2):383-7
pubmed: 18947938
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Jul 1;74(3):824-30
pubmed: 19117696
BMC Cancer. 2020 May 12;20(1):406
pubmed: 32398040
J Clin Oncol. 2003 May 15;21(10):1904-11
pubmed: 12743142
J Nucl Med. 2018 Feb;59(2):230-237
pubmed: 29123013
Radiother Oncol. 2013 Jan;106(1):59-63
pubmed: 23199653
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Mar 15;82(4):1405-10
pubmed: 21640507
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Sep;44(10):1656-1662
pubmed: 28646463
Eur Urol. 2017 Jan;71(1):37-43
pubmed: 27523595
Eur Urol. 2015 May;67(5):852-63
pubmed: 25240974
Front Neuroinform. 2014 Feb 20;8:13
pubmed: 24600387
Int J Health Geogr. 2010 Jul 23;9:39
pubmed: 20653969
BMC Cancer. 2015 Sep 25;15:646
pubmed: 26408012
Eur Urol. 2013 Mar;63(3):450-8
pubmed: 22795517
Acta Oncol. 2020 Oct;59(10):1224-1234
pubmed: 32536241
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Jan 1;109(1):174-185
pubmed: 32861817
Strahlenther Onkol. 2020 Mar;196(3):213-221
pubmed: 31559480
Nat Methods. 2020 Mar;17(3):261-272
pubmed: 32015543
Med Phys. 2012 Oct;39(10):6332-8
pubmed: 23039669
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Nov;19(11):1504-1515
pubmed: 30316827
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2017 Sep - Oct;7(5):325-331
pubmed: 28377141
J Med Syst. 2004 Jun;28(3):223-36
pubmed: 15446614
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Dec 1;25(34):5366-73
pubmed: 18048817
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Dec;141:174-180
pubmed: 31563410
Radiographics. 2019 Jan-Feb;39(1):186-212
pubmed: 30620699
Eur Urol. 2008 Jan;53(1):118-25
pubmed: 17709171

Auteurs

Irina Filimonova (I)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Daniela Schmidt (D)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Sina Mansoorian (S)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Thomas Weissmann (T)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Hadi Siavooshhaghighi (H)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Alexander Cavallaro (A)

Institute of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Torsten Kuwert (T)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Christoph Bert (C)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Benjamin Frey (B)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Luitpold Valentin Distel (LV)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Sebastian Lettmaier (S)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Rainer Fietkau (R)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Florian Putz (F)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Classifications MeSH