Comparative analysis of delivered and planned doses in target volumes for lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Adaptive therapy has been enormously improved based on the art of generating adaptive computed tomography (ACT) from planning CT (PCT) and the on-board image used for the patient setup. Exploiting the ACT, this study evaluated the dose delivered to patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and derived relationship between the delivered dose and the parameters obtained through the evaluation procedure. METHODS: SABR treatment records of 72 patients with NSCLC who were prescribed a dose of 60 Gy (Dprescribed) to the 95% volume of the planning target volume (PTV) in four fractions were analysed in this retrospective study; 288 ACTs were generated by rigid and deformable registration of a PCT to a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) per fraction. Each ACT was sent to the treatment planning system (TPS) and treated as an individual PCT to calculate the dose. Delivered dose to a patient was estimated by averaging four doses calculated from four ACTs per treatment. Through the process, each ACT provided the geometric parameters, such as mean displacement of the deformed PTV voxels (Warpmean) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) from deformation vector field, and dosimetric parameters, e.g. difference of homogeneity index (ΔHI, HI defined as (D2%-D98%)/Dprescribed*100) and mean delivered dose to the PTV (Dmean), obtained from the dose statistics in the TPS. Those parameters were analyzed using multiple linear regression and one-way-ANOVA of SPSS® (version 27). RESULTS: The prescribed dose was confirmed to be fully delivered to internal target volume (ITV) within maximum difference of 1%, and the difference between the planned and delivered doses to the PTV was agreed within 6% for more than 95% of the ACT cases. Volume changes of the ITV during the treatment course were observed to be minor in comparison of their standard deviations. Multiple linear regression analysis between the obtained parameters and the dose delivered to 95% volume of the PTV (D95%) revealed four PTV parameters [Warpmean, DSC, ΔHI between the PCT and ACT, Dmean] and the PTV D95% to be significantly related with P-values < 0.05. The ACT cases of high ΔHI were caused by higher values of the Warpmean and DSC from the deformable image registration, resulting in lower PTV D95% delivered. The mean values of PTV D95% and Warpmean showed significant differences depending on the lung lobe where the tumour was located. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the dose delivered to patients with NSCLC treated with SABR using ACTs confirmed that the prescribed dose was accurately delivered to the ITV. However, for the PTV, certain ACT cases characterised by high HI deviations from the original plan demonstrated variations in the delivered dose. These variations may potentially arise from factors such as patient setup during treatment, as suggested by the statistical analyses of the parameters obtained from the dose evaluation process.

Safety and Efficacy of HL301 In Radiation Pneumonitis in Patients With Unresectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Curative Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 2a Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of HL301, a standardized combination product of 7 medicinal plants, in radiation pneumonitis in patients with unresectable non-small cell lung cancer undergoing curative concurrent chemoradiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The target accrual was 87 and a total of 63 patients were enrolled due to poor accrual rate. We randomly assigned the 63 patients to receive a placebo (arm A), or 1200 mg HL301 (arm B), or 1800 mg HL301 (arm C). Patients received weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin concurrently with intensity-modulated radiation therapy at 60 to 66 Gy in conventional fractionation. Durvalumab was administered as a maintenance treatment according to standard clinical practice. HL301 was administered orally, daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥2 radiation pneumonitis at 24 weeks postchemoradiotherapy. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the patients were well balanced. The drug was tolerable with a compliance rate of 86.6%, 86.2%, and 88.8% in arms A, B, and C, respectively (P = .874). None of the patients experienced severe drug-related adverse events. No significant difference in the rate of adverse events were observed between the treatment arms. The incidence of grade ≥2 radiation pneumonitis at 24 weeks postchemoradiotherapy was 37.5% (95% CI, 18.5%-61.4%), 55.6% (95% CI, 33.7%-75.4%), and 52.4% (95% CI, 32.4%-71.7%) in arms A, B, and C, respectively (P = .535). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first exploratory clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of HL301 in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Safety and feasibility of HL301 were established but no signals of efficacy in reducing radiation pneumonitis was observed in this dose level.

Treatment of Fanconi anemia patient with synchronous esophageal and tongue cancer in COVID-19 era: a case report.

Although Fanconi anemia patients accompany a high risk of multiple cancers, radiation therapy on these patients has been carried out only in limited cases due to the concern for radiation toxicity that stems from their susceptibility to radiation. We report a case of a 28-year-old female patient diagnosed as synchronous esophageal and tongue cancer, and underwent two cycles of radiation therapy, inevitably in the condition of coronavirus disease 2019 infection. She received radiation therapy of 30 Gy to esophageal mass with neoadjuvant aim in her first-round radiation therapy, and later received 27 Gy to tongue cancer surgical bed with adjuvant aim in her second-round radiation therapy. With no further treatment, she has been maintaining no evidence of disease state for 7 months. Managing Fanconi anemia patients with multiple cancers using radiation therapy is feasible, in which cases a dose de-escalation may be important considering the radiation toxicity and possible future re-treatment.