RESUMO
PURPOSE: Adjacent tissues-in-beam (TIB) may receive substantial incidental doses within standard tangent fields during hypofractioned whole breast irradiation (HF-WBI). To characterize the impact of dose to TIB, we analyzed dosimetric parameters of TIB and associated acute toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Plans prescribed to 40.5â¯Gy/15 fractions from 4/2016-1/2018 were evaluated. Structures of interest were contoured: (1) TIB: all tissues encompassed by plan 30% isodose lines, (2) breast, (3) non-breast TIB (nTIB): TIB minus contoured breast. Volumes of TIB, breast, and nTIB receiving 100%-107% of prescription dose (V100-V107) were calculated. Twelve patient- and physician-reported acute toxicities were prospectively collected weekly. Correlations between volumetric and dosimetric parameters were assessed. Uni- and multivariable logistic regressions evaluated toxicity grade changes as a function of TIB, breast, and nTIB V100-V107 (in cm3). RESULTS: We evaluated 137 plans. Breast volume was positively correlated with nTIB and nTIB V100 (rhoâ¯=â¯0.52, rhoâ¯=â¯0.30, respectively, both pâ¯<â¯0.001). V107â¯>â¯2 cm3 were noted in 14% of breast and 21% of nTIB volumes. On multivariable analyses, increasing breast and nTIB V100 significantly raised odds of grade 2+ dermatitis and burning/twinging pain, respectively; increasing nTIB V105 elevated odds of hyperpigmentation and burning pain; and increasing nTIB V107 raised odds of burning pain. Threshold volumes for >6-fold odds of developing burning pain were TIB V105â¯>â¯100â¯cm3 and V107â¯>â¯5â¯cm3. CONCLUSIONS: For HF-WBI, doses to nTIB over the prescription predicted acute toxicities independent of breast doses. These data support inclusion of TIB as a region of interest in treatment planning and protocol design.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The Bone Metastases Ensemble Trees for Survival Decision Support Platform (BMETS-DSP) provides patient-specific survival predictions and evidence-based recommendations to guide multidisciplinary management for symptomatic bone metastases. We assessed the clinical utility of the BMETS-DSP through a pilot prepost design in a simulated clinical environment. METHODS: Ten Radiation Oncology physicians reviewed 55 patient cases at two time points: without and then with the use of BMETS-DSP. Assessment included 12-month survival estimate, confidence in and likelihood of sharing estimates with patients, and recommendations for open surgery, systemic therapy, hospice referral, and radiotherapy (RT) regimen. Paired statistics compared pre- versus post-DSP outcomes. Reported statistical significance is P < .05. RESULTS: Pre- versus post-DSP, overestimation of true minus estimated survival time was significantly reduced (mean difference -2.1 [standard deviation 4.1] v -1 month [standard deviation 3.5]). Prediction accuracy was significantly improved at cut points of < 3 (72 v 79%), ≤ 6 (64 v 71%), and ≥ 12 months (70 v 81%). Median ratings of confidence in and likelihood of sharing prognosis significantly increased. Significantly greater concordance was seen in matching use of 1-fraction RT with the true survival < 3 months (70 v 76%) and < 10-fraction RT with the true survival < 12 months (55 v 62%) and appropriate use of open surgery (47% v 53%), without significant changes in selection of hospice referral or systemic therapy. CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates that BMETS-DSP significantly improved physician survival estimation accuracy, prognostic confidence, likelihood of sharing prognosis, and use of prognosis-appropriate RT regimens in the care of symptomatic bone metastases, supporting future multi-institutional validation of the platform.