Cochlea sparing optimized radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Chemoradiotherapy
/ adverse effects
Cochlea
/ radiation effects
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
/ radiotherapy
Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms
/ radiotherapy
Organs at Risk
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ adverse effects
Young Adult
Chemoradiotherapy
Cochlea sparing
Late toxicity
Nasopharyngeal carcinoma
VMAT
Journal
Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2021
01 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
01
12
2020
accepted:
25
03
2021
entrez:
2
4
2021
pubmed:
3
4
2021
medline:
19
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is standard of care for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Due to the tumor localization and concomitant platinum-based chemotherapy, hearing impairment is a frequent complication, without defined dose-threshold. In this study, we aimed to achieve the maximum possible cochleae sparing. Treatment plans of 20 patients, treated with CRT (6 IMRT and 14 VMAT) based on the QUANTEC organs-at-risk constraints were investigated. The cochleae were re-delineated independently by two radiation oncologists, whereas target volumes and other organs at risk (OARs) were not changed. The initial plans, aiming to a mean cochlea dose < 45 Gy, were re-optimized with VMAT, using 2-2.5 arcs without compromising the dose coverage of the target volume. Mean cochlea dose, PTV coverage, Homogeneity Index, Conformity Index and dose to other OAR were compared to the reference plans. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate differences, a p value < 0.05 was considered significant. The re-optimized plans achieved a statistically significant lower dose for both cochleae (median dose for left and right 14.97 Gy and 18.47 Gy vs. 24.09 Gy and 26.05 Gy respectively, p < 0.001) compared to the reference plans, without compromising other plan quality parameters. The median NTCP for tinnitus of the most exposed sites was 11.3% (range 3.52-91.1%) for the original plans, compared to 4.60% (range 1.46-90.1%) for the re-optimized plans (p < 0.001). For hearing loss, the median NTCP of the most exposed sites could be improved from 0.03% (range 0-99.0%) to 0.00% (range 0-98.5%, p < 0.001). A significantly improved cochlea sparing beyond current QUANTEC constraints is feasible without compromising the PTV dose coverage in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with VMAT. As there appears to be no threshold for hearing toxicity after CRT, this should be considered for future treatment planning.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is standard of care for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Due to the tumor localization and concomitant platinum-based chemotherapy, hearing impairment is a frequent complication, without defined dose-threshold. In this study, we aimed to achieve the maximum possible cochleae sparing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Treatment plans of 20 patients, treated with CRT (6 IMRT and 14 VMAT) based on the QUANTEC organs-at-risk constraints were investigated. The cochleae were re-delineated independently by two radiation oncologists, whereas target volumes and other organs at risk (OARs) were not changed. The initial plans, aiming to a mean cochlea dose < 45 Gy, were re-optimized with VMAT, using 2-2.5 arcs without compromising the dose coverage of the target volume. Mean cochlea dose, PTV coverage, Homogeneity Index, Conformity Index and dose to other OAR were compared to the reference plans. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate differences, a p value < 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The re-optimized plans achieved a statistically significant lower dose for both cochleae (median dose for left and right 14.97 Gy and 18.47 Gy vs. 24.09 Gy and 26.05 Gy respectively, p < 0.001) compared to the reference plans, without compromising other plan quality parameters. The median NTCP for tinnitus of the most exposed sites was 11.3% (range 3.52-91.1%) for the original plans, compared to 4.60% (range 1.46-90.1%) for the re-optimized plans (p < 0.001). For hearing loss, the median NTCP of the most exposed sites could be improved from 0.03% (range 0-99.0%) to 0.00% (range 0-98.5%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A significantly improved cochlea sparing beyond current QUANTEC constraints is feasible without compromising the PTV dose coverage in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with VMAT. As there appears to be no threshold for hearing toxicity after CRT, this should be considered for future treatment planning.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33794949
doi: 10.1186/s13014-021-01796-4
pii: 10.1186/s13014-021-01796-4
pmc: PMC8017833
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
64Références
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Aug 1;27(22):3684-90
pubmed: 19564532
Radiother Oncol. 2002 Oct;65(1):1-7
pubmed: 12413668
J Neurosurg. 2011 Dec;115(6):1078-86
pubmed: 21961962
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Feb 10;35(5):498-505
pubmed: 27918720
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Jan;126(1):25-36
pubmed: 29153464
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 Apr;20(4):823-33
pubmed: 2004961
Head Neck. 2013 Nov;35(11):1662-8
pubmed: 23280686
Br J Radiol. 2015 Sep;88(1053):20150052
pubmed: 26111068
Int J Radiat Biol. 2017 Dec;93(12):1327-1333
pubmed: 28967273
Br J Cancer. 2014 Jan 7;110(1):49-54
pubmed: 24253503
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Feb 1;67(2):469-79
pubmed: 17236969
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Sep 1;6(9):1363-1371
pubmed: 32729886
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Apr 1;49(5):1229-34
pubmed: 11286827
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Sep;119:87-96
pubmed: 31425966
Phys Med. 2019 May;61:64-69
pubmed: 31151581
Strahlenther Onkol. 2017 Nov;193(11):910-920
pubmed: 28887665
Strahlenther Onkol. 2018 Dec;194(12):1124-1131
pubmed: 30109361
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 Aug;21(3):723-8
pubmed: 1869465
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Mar;110(3):377-84
pubmed: 24630534
Oral Oncol. 2018 Nov;86:8-18
pubmed: 30409324
N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;381(12):1124-1135
pubmed: 31150573
Radiother Oncol. 2013 Mar;106(3):352-8
pubmed: 23333019
Head Neck. 1999 Sep;21(6):547-53
pubmed: 10449671
Transl Oncol. 2015 Dec;8(6):456-62
pubmed: 26692526
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2017 Mar - Apr;7(2):e145-e155
pubmed: 28274405
Am J Clin Oncol. 2005 Apr;28(2):143-7
pubmed: 15803007
Radiother Oncol. 2012 Sep;104(3):286-93
pubmed: 22995588
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Feb 1;64(2):333-42
pubmed: 16414369
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Apr 1;61(5):1393-402
pubmed: 15817342
Head Neck. 2006 Oct;28(10):902-8
pubmed: 16783830
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Apr 1;73(5):1335-42
pubmed: 18922648
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Mar 1;73(3):779-88
pubmed: 18707819
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Oct;117(1):83-90
pubmed: 26277855
Radiat Oncol. 2015 Sep 17;10:194
pubmed: 26377924
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Nov;103:249-258
pubmed: 30286418
Strahlenther Onkol. 2011 Jun;187(6):350-6
pubmed: 21603994
Med Dosim. 2019 Autumn;44(3):226-232
pubmed: 30268345
Tumori. 2012 Nov;98(6):709-14
pubmed: 23389356
Br J Radiol. 2015 Apr;88(1048):20140413
pubmed: 25671247
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S50-7
pubmed: 20171518