Quantitatively Excessive Normal Tissue Toxicity and Poor Target Coverage in Postoperative Lung Cancer Radiotherapy Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A previous meta-analysis (MA) found postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in lung cancer patients to be detrimental in N0/N1 patients and equivocal in the N2 setting. We hypothesized that treatment plans generated using MA protocols had worse dosimetric outcomes compared to modern plans. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrieved plans for 13 patients who received PORT with modern planning. A plan was recreated for each patient using the 8 protocols included in MA. Dosimetric values were then compared between the modern and simulated MA plans. RESULTS: A total of 104 MA plans were generated. Median prescribed dose was 50.4 (range, 50-60) Gy in the modern plans and 53.2 (30-60) Gy in the MA protocols. Median planning volume coverage was 96% (93%-100%) in the modern plans, versus 58% (0%-100%) in the MA plans (P < .001). Internal target volume coverage was 100% (99%-100%) versus 65% (0%-100%), respectively (P < .001). Organs at risk received the following doses: spinal cord maximum dose, 36.8 (4.6-50.4) Gy versus 46.8 (2.9-74.0) Gy (P < .001); esophageal mean dose, 22.9 (5.5-35) Gy versus 30.5 (11.1-52.5) Gy (P = .003); heart V30 (percentage of volume of an organ receiving at least a dose of 30 Gy), 16% (0%-45%) versus 35% (0%-79%) (P = .047); mean lung dose, 12.4 (3.4-24.3) Gy versus 14.8 (4.1-27.4) Gy (P = .008); and lung V20, 18% (4%-34%) versus 25% (8%-67%) (P = .023). CONCLUSION: We quantitatively confirm the inferiority of the techniques used in the PORT MA. Our analysis showed a lower therapeutic ratio in the MA plans, which may explain the poor outcomes in the MA. The findings of the MA are not relevant in the era of modern treatment planning.

Study of 201 non-small cell lung cancer patients given stereotactic ablative radiation therapy shows local control dependence on dose calculation algorithm.

PURPOSE: Pencil beam (PB) and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) dose calculation algorithms differ significantly when used in the thorax. However, such differences have seldom been previously directly correlated with outcomes of lung stereotactic ablative body radiation (SABR). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data for 201 non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with SABR were analyzed retrospectively. All patients were treated with 50 Gy in 5 fractions of 10 Gy each. The radiation prescription mandated that 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) receive the prescribed dose. One hundred sixteen patients were planned with BrainLab treatment planning software (TPS) with the PB algorithm and treated on a Novalis unit. The other 85 were planned on the Pinnacle TPS with the CCC algorithm and treated on a Varian linac. Treatment planning objectives were numerically identical for both groups. The median follow-up times were 24 and 17 months for the PB and CCC groups, respectively. The primary endpoint was local/marginal control of the irradiated lesion. Gray's competing risk method was used to determine the statistical differences in local/marginal control rates between the PB and CCC groups. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients planned with PB and 4 patients planned with the CCC algorithms to the same nominal doses experienced local recurrence. There was a statistically significant difference in recurrence rates between the PB and CCC groups (hazard ratio 3.4 [95% confidence interval: 1.18-9.83], Gray's test P=.019). The differences (Δ) between the 2 algorithms for target coverage were as follows: ΔD99GITV = 7.4 Gy, ΔD99PTV = 10.4 Gy, ΔV90GITV = 13.7%, ΔV90PTV = 37.6%, ΔD95PTV = 9.8 Gy, and ΔDISO = 3.4 Gy. GITV = gross internal tumor volume. CONCLUSIONS: Local control in patients receiving who were planned to the same nominal dose with PB and CCC algorithms were statistically significantly different. Possible alternative explanations are described in the report, although they are not thought likely to explain the difference. We conclude that the difference is due to relative dosimetric underdosing of tumors with the PB algorithm.

Clinical and dosimetric predictors of radiation pneumonitis in a large series of patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy to the lung.

PURPOSE: To report clinical and dosimetric factors predictive of radiation pneumonitis (RP) in patients receiving lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) from a series of 240 patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Of the 297 isocenters treating 263 patients, 240 patients (n=263 isocenters) had evaluable information regarding RP. Age, gender, current smoking status and pack-years, O2 use, Charlson Comorbidity Index, prior lung radiation therapy (yes/no), dose/fractionation, V5, V13, V20, Vprescription, mean lung dose, planning target volume (PTV), total lung volume, and PTV/lung volume ratio were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (11.0%) developed symptomatic pneumonitis (26 grade 2, 3 grade 3). The mean V20 was 6.5% (range, 0.4%-20.2%), and the average mean lung dose was 5.03 Gy (0.547-12.2 Gy). In univariable analysis female gender (P=.0257) and Charlson Comorbidity index (P=.0366) were significantly predictive of RP. Among dosimetric parameters, V5 (P=.0186), V13 (P=.0438), and Vprescription (where dose=60 Gy) (P=.0128) were significant. There was only a trend toward significance for V20 (P=.0610). Planning target volume/normal lung volume ratio was highly significant (P=.0024). In multivariable analysis the clinical factors of female gender, pack-years smoking, and larger gross internal tumor volume and PTV were predictive (P=.0094, .0312, .0364, and .052, respectively), but no dosimetric factors were significant. CONCLUSIONS: Rate of symptomatic RP was 11%. Our mean lung dose was <600 cGy in most cases and V20<10%. In univariable analysis, dosimetric factors were predictive, while tumor size (or tumor/lung volume ratio) played a role in multivariable and univariable and analysis, respectively.

Analysis of incidental radiation dose to uninvolved mediastinal/supraclavicular lymph nodes in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer treated without elective nodal irradiation.

Classic teaching states that treatment of limited-stage small cell lung cancer (L-SCLC) requires large treatment fields covering the entire mediastinum. However, a trend in modern thoracic radiotherapy is toward more conformal fields, employing positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans to determine the gross tumor volume (GTV). This analysis evaluates the dosimetric results when using selective nodal irradiation (SNI) to treat a patient with L-SCLC, quantitatively comparing the results to standard Intergroup treatment fields. Sixteen consecutive patients with L-SCLC and central mediastinal disease who also underwent pretherapy PET/CT scans were studied in this analysis. For each patient, we created SNI treatment volumes, based on the PET/CT-based criteria for malignancy. We also created 2 ENI plans, the first without heterogeneity corrections, as per the Intergroup 0096 study (ENI(off)) and the second with heterogeneity corrections while maintaining constant the number of MUs delivered between these latter 2 plans (ENI(on)). Nodal stations were contoured using published guidelines, then placed into 4 "bins" (treated nodes, 1 echelon away, >1 echelon away within the mediastinum, contralateral hilar/supraclavicular). These were aggregated across the patients in the study. Dose to these nodal bins and to tumor/normal structures were compared among these plans using pairwise t-tests. The ENI(on) plans demonstrated a statistically significant degradation in dose coverage compared with the ENI(off) plans. ENI and SNI both created a dose gradient to the lymph nodes across the mediastinum. Overall, the gradient was larger for the SNI plans, although the maximum dose to the "1 echelon away" nodes was not statistically different. Coverage of the GTV and planning target volume (PTV) were improved with SNI, while simultaneously reducing esophageal and spinal cord dose though at the expense of modestly reduced dose to anatomically distant lymph nodes within the mediastinum. The ENI(on) plans demonstrate that intergroup-style treatments, as actually delivered, had statistically reduced coverage to the mediastinum and tumor volumes than was reported. Furthermore, SNI leads to improved tumor coverage and reduced esophageal/spinal cord dose, which suggests the possibility of dose escalation using SNI.