Patient selection, inter-fraction plan robustness and reduction of toxicity risk with deep inspiration breath hold in intensity-modulated radiotherapy of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH)
autoplanning
gating
iCE
lung cancer radiotherapy
normal tissue complication probability (NTCP)
radiation toxicity
radiotherapy robustness
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
10
06
2022
accepted:
02
08
2022
entrez:
16
9
2022
pubmed:
17
9
2022
medline:
17
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
State-of-the-art radiotherapy of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) is performed with intensity-modulation during free breathing (FB). Previous studies have found encouraging geometric reproducibility and patient compliance of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) radiotherapy for LA-NSCLC patients. However, dosimetric comparisons of DIBH with FB are sparse, and DIBH is not routinely used for this patient group. The objective of this simulation study was therefore to compare DIBH and FB in a prospective cohort of LA-NSCLC patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). For 38 LA-NSCLC patients, 4DCTs and DIBH CTs were acquired for treatment planning and during the first and third week of radiotherapy treatment. Using automated planning, one FB and one DIBH IMRT plan were generated for each patient. FB and DIBH was compared in terms of dosimetric parameters and NTCP. The treatment plans were recalculated on the repeat CTs to evaluate robustness. Correlations between ΔNTCPs and patient characteristics that could potentially predict the benefit of DIBH were explored. DIBH reduced the median D Compared to FB, DIBH allowed for smaller target volumes and similar target coverage. DIBH reduced the lung and heart dose, as well as the risk of radiation pneumonitis and 2-year mortality, for 92% and 74% of LA-NSCLC patients, respectively. However, the advantages varied considerably between patients, and the ability to reduce the risk of 2-year mortality was dependent on tumor location. Evaluation of repeat CTs showed similar robustness of the dose distributions with each technique.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
State-of-the-art radiotherapy of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) is performed with intensity-modulation during free breathing (FB). Previous studies have found encouraging geometric reproducibility and patient compliance of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) radiotherapy for LA-NSCLC patients. However, dosimetric comparisons of DIBH with FB are sparse, and DIBH is not routinely used for this patient group. The objective of this simulation study was therefore to compare DIBH and FB in a prospective cohort of LA-NSCLC patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).
Methods
UNASSIGNED
For 38 LA-NSCLC patients, 4DCTs and DIBH CTs were acquired for treatment planning and during the first and third week of radiotherapy treatment. Using automated planning, one FB and one DIBH IMRT plan were generated for each patient. FB and DIBH was compared in terms of dosimetric parameters and NTCP. The treatment plans were recalculated on the repeat CTs to evaluate robustness. Correlations between ΔNTCPs and patient characteristics that could potentially predict the benefit of DIBH were explored.
Results
UNASSIGNED
DIBH reduced the median D
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Compared to FB, DIBH allowed for smaller target volumes and similar target coverage. DIBH reduced the lung and heart dose, as well as the risk of radiation pneumonitis and 2-year mortality, for 92% and 74% of LA-NSCLC patients, respectively. However, the advantages varied considerably between patients, and the ability to reduce the risk of 2-year mortality was dependent on tumor location. Evaluation of repeat CTs showed similar robustness of the dose distributions with each technique.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36110942
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.966134
pmc: PMC9469652
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
966134Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Fjellanger, Rossi, Heijmen, Pettersen, Sandvik, Breedveld, Sulen and Hysing.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
LR, BH and SB: Erasmus MC Cancer Institute has research collaborations with Elekta AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Accuray, Inc. (Sunnyvale, USA) and Varian Medical Systems, Inc. (Palo Alto, USA). The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. 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
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Nov 13;13(22):
pubmed: 34830838
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Apr;123(1):78-84
pubmed: 28245908
Acta Oncol. 2016 Aug;55(8):1053-6
pubmed: 26935017
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Dec 1;81(5):1442-57
pubmed: 20934273
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Nov;152:117-125
pubmed: 31547943
Radiother Oncol. 2022 Mar;168:234-240
pubmed: 35121030
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Dec 08;13(24):
pubmed: 34944813
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Dec;153:79-87
pubmed: 32585236
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Apr 05;14(7):
pubmed: 35406605
Med Phys. 2012 Feb;39(2):951-63
pubmed: 22320804
Strahlenther Onkol. 2012 Jul;188(7):582-9
pubmed: 22588467
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Dec;153:67-78
pubmed: 32976873
Br J Radiol. 2019 Dec;92(1104):20190569
pubmed: 31544478
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Dec;6(12):2058-68
pubmed: 22052228
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Mar 1;94(3):478-92
pubmed: 26867877
Acta Oncol. 2014 May;53(5):605-12
pubmed: 23957623
Front Oncol. 2021 Apr 15;11:619929
pubmed: 33937025
N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 13;379(24):2342-2350
pubmed: 30280658
Acta Oncol. 2021 Mar;60(3):293-299
pubmed: 33306422
J Med Radiat Sci. 2015 Mar;62(1):74-81
pubmed: 26229670
Strahlenther Onkol. 2017 May;193(5):402-409
pubmed: 28314877
J Thorac Oncol. 2021 May;16(5):860-867
pubmed: 33476803
J Clin Oncol. 2017 May 1;35(13):1395-1402
pubmed: 28301264
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Mar 1;38(7):706-714
pubmed: 31841363
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Apr;127(1):1-5
pubmed: 29605476
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S70-6
pubmed: 20171521
Radiother Oncol. 2022 Feb;167:158-164
pubmed: 34942280
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Oct;117(1):49-54
pubmed: 26341608
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan;35(1):56-62
pubmed: 28034064