TY - JOUR
T1 - Adaptive/nonadaptive proton radiation planning and outcomes in a phase II trial for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer
AU - Koay, Eugene J.
AU - Lege, David
AU - Mohan, Radhe
AU - Komaki, Ritsuko
AU - Cox, James D.
AU - Chang, Joe Y.
N1 - Funding Information:
Supported in part by National Cancer Institute grants R01 CA74043, P01 CA021239, and CA016672 . Dr Chang is a recipient of a Developmental Project Award from The University of Texas National Institutes of Health Lung Cancer Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) ( P50 CA70907 ).
PY - 2012/12/1
Y1 - 2012/12/1
N2 - Purpose: To analyze dosimetric variables and outcomes after adaptive replanning of radiation therapy during concurrent high-dose protons and chemotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods and Materials: Nine of 44 patients with stage III NSCLC in a prospective phase II trial of concurrent paclitaxel/carboplatin with proton radiation [74 Gy(RBE) in 37 fractions] had modifications to their original treatment plans after re-evaluation revealed changes that would compromise coverage of the target volume or violate dose constraints; plans for the other 35 patients were not changed. We compared patients with adaptive plans with those with nonadaptive plans in terms of dosimetry and outcomes. Results: At a median follow-up of 21.2 months (median overall survival, 29.6 months), no differences were found in local, regional, or distant failure or overall survival between groups. Adaptive planning was used more often for large tumors that shrank to a greater extent (median, 107.1 cm3 adaptive and 86.4 cm3 nonadaptive; median changes in volume, 25.3% adaptive and 1.2% nonadaptive; P<.01). The median number of fractions delivered using adaptive planning was 13 (range, 4-22). Adaptive planning generally improved sparing of the esophagus (median absolute decrease in V70, 1.8%; range, 0%-22.9%) and spinal cord (median absolute change in maximum dose, 3.7 Gy; range, 0-13.8 Gy). Without adaptive replanning, target coverage would have been compromised in 2 cases (57% and 82% coverage without adaptation vs 100% for both with adaptation); neither patient experienced local failure. Radiation-related grade 3 toxicity rates were similar between groups. Conclusions: Adaptive planning can reduce normal tissue doses and prevent target misses, particularly for patients with large tumors that shrink substantially during therapy. Adaptive plans seem to have acceptable toxicity and achieve similar local, regional, and distant control and overall survival, even in patients with larger tumors, vs nonadaptive plans.
AB - Purpose: To analyze dosimetric variables and outcomes after adaptive replanning of radiation therapy during concurrent high-dose protons and chemotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods and Materials: Nine of 44 patients with stage III NSCLC in a prospective phase II trial of concurrent paclitaxel/carboplatin with proton radiation [74 Gy(RBE) in 37 fractions] had modifications to their original treatment plans after re-evaluation revealed changes that would compromise coverage of the target volume or violate dose constraints; plans for the other 35 patients were not changed. We compared patients with adaptive plans with those with nonadaptive plans in terms of dosimetry and outcomes. Results: At a median follow-up of 21.2 months (median overall survival, 29.6 months), no differences were found in local, regional, or distant failure or overall survival between groups. Adaptive planning was used more often for large tumors that shrank to a greater extent (median, 107.1 cm3 adaptive and 86.4 cm3 nonadaptive; median changes in volume, 25.3% adaptive and 1.2% nonadaptive; P<.01). The median number of fractions delivered using adaptive planning was 13 (range, 4-22). Adaptive planning generally improved sparing of the esophagus (median absolute decrease in V70, 1.8%; range, 0%-22.9%) and spinal cord (median absolute change in maximum dose, 3.7 Gy; range, 0-13.8 Gy). Without adaptive replanning, target coverage would have been compromised in 2 cases (57% and 82% coverage without adaptation vs 100% for both with adaptation); neither patient experienced local failure. Radiation-related grade 3 toxicity rates were similar between groups. Conclusions: Adaptive planning can reduce normal tissue doses and prevent target misses, particularly for patients with large tumors that shrink substantially during therapy. Adaptive plans seem to have acceptable toxicity and achieve similar local, regional, and distant control and overall survival, even in patients with larger tumors, vs nonadaptive plans.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869132433&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84869132433&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.02.041
DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.02.041
M3 - Article
C2 - 22543217
AN - SCOPUS:84869132433
SN - 0360-3016
VL - 84
SP - 1093
EP - 1100
JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
IS - 5
ER -