Using Smaller-Than-Standard Radiation Treatment Margins Does Not Change Survival Outcomes in Patients with High-Grade Gliomas.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The number of studies that evaluate treatment margins for high grade gliomas (HGG) are limited. We hypothesize that patients with HGG who are treated with a gross tumor volume (GTV) to planning tumor volume (PTV) expansion of ≤1 cm will have progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates similar to those treated in accordance with standard protocols by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group or European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Furthermore, the PFS and OS of subgroups within the study population will have equivalent survival outcomes with GTV1-to-PTV1 margins of 1.0 cm and 0.4 cm. METHODS AND MATERIALS Treatment plans and outcomes for patients with pathologically confirmed HGG were analyzed (n = 267). Survival (PFS and OS) was calculated from the time of the first radiation treatment and a χ2 test or Fisher exact test was used to calculate the associations between margin size and patient characteristics. Survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and compared using the log-rank test. All analyses were performed on the univariate level. RESULTS: The median PFS and OS times were 10.6 and 19.1 months, respectively. By disease, the median PFS and OS times were 8.6 and 16.1 months for glioblastoma and 26.7 and 52.5 months for anaplastic glioma. The median follow-up time was 18.3 months. The treatment margin had no effect on outcome and the 1.0 cm GTV1-PTV1 margin subgroup (n = 212) showed median PFS and OS times of 10.7 and 19.1 months, respectively, and the 0.4 cm margin subgroup (n = 55) 10.2 and 19.3 months, respectively. In comparison with the standard treatment with 2 cm to 3 cm margins, there was not a significant difference in outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is no apparent difference in survival when utilizing smaller versus larger margins as defined by the guidelines of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Although there remains no class I evidence that outcomes after treatment with smaller margins are identical to those after treatment with larger margins, this large series with long-term follow up suggests that a reduction of the margins is safe and further investigation is warranted.