Dataset Information

A phase I/II radiation dose escalation trial using simultaneous integrated boost technique with elective nodal irradiation and concurrent chemotherapy for unresectable esophageal Cancer.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:To investigate the safety and tolerability of simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique concurrent with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) and dual-drug chemotherapy for patients with unresectable esophageal cancer. METHODS:In phase I, the prophylactic PTV received a stable dose of 50.40Gy/1.80Gy/28f while the boost area was planned with 3 consecutive dose levels: the first dose level was 60.76Gy/2.17Gy/28f, and then escalated approximately every 2?Gy. ENI was incorporated in Clinical Target Volume (CTV), and paclitaxel and nedaplatin were given concurrently for at least 5?weeks. In phase II, enrolled patients were treated with Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) obtained in phase I and the compliance rate, survival results and toxicities were evaluated. RESULTS:From December 2014 to April 2017, 53 patients were enrolled. In phase I, 2 out of 6 patients developed Dose-Limiting Toxicity (DLT) at dose level 1. Due to excessive treatment-related toxicities, the escalation process was suspended and de-escalated to 59.92Gy /2.14Gy /28?f. Three patients were treated at this dose level, all of whom completed at least 5?weeks of chemotherapy and none of whom reached a DLT, determining the newly added dose level to be the MTD. In phase II, 44 patients were treated with MTD, 31 of them (70.0%) completed at least 5?weeks of chemotherapy. The most common Grade 3 or 4 toxicities in phase II included leukopenia (21%) and esophagitis (15%). With a median follow-up time of 16.9?months, 1-y OS, DFS and local failure-free survival were 76.9, 63.6 and 78.8% respectively. CONCLUSION:The SIB technique was feasible and safe at the MTD (95% PGTV/PTV 59.92/50.40Gy/28f) concurrent with ENI and dual-drug chemotherapy for patients with unresectable esophageal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov NCT02429622 . Retrospectively registered on April 24, 2015.

SUBMITTER: Li C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6420772 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A phase I/II radiation dose escalation trial using simultaneous integrated boost technique with elective nodal irradiation and concurrent chemotherapy for unresectable esophageal Cancer.

Li Chen C Ni Wenjie W Wang Xin X Zhou Zongmei Z Deng Wei W Chang Xiao X Chen Dongfu D Feng Qinfu Q Liang Jun J Wang Xiaozhen X Deng Lei L Wang Wenqing W Bi Nan N Zhang Tao T Xiao Zefen Z

Radiation oncology (London, England) 20190315 1

<h4>Background</h4>To investigate the safety and tolerability of simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique concurrent with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) and dual-drug chemotherapy for patients with unresectable esophageal cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>In phase I, the prophylactic PTV received a stable dose of 50.40Gy/1.80Gy/28f while the boost area was planned with 3 consecutive dose levels: the first dose level was 60.76Gy/2.17Gy/28f, and then escalated approximately every 2 Gy. ENI was incorpo ...[more]

PMID: 30876442

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe evaluate the feasibility of the elective nodal irradiation strategy in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for pancreatic cancer.MethodsThree simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)-SBRT plans (Boost1, Boost2, and Boost3) were retrospectively generated for each of 20 different patients. Boost1 delivered 33 and 25 Gy to PTV1 and PTV2, respectively. Boost2 delivered 40, 33, and 25 Gy to boostCTV, PTV1, and PTV2, respectively. Boost3 delivered 33 and 25 Gy to PTV1 and PTV3, respectively. PTV1 covered the initial standard SBRT plan (InitPlan) gross tumor volume (GTV). PTV2 covered CTVgeom which was created by a 10-mm expansion (15 mm posterior) of GTV. PTV3 covered CTVprop which included elective nodal regions. The boostCTV included GTV as well as involved vasculature. The planning feasibility in each scenario and dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were analyzed and compared with the InitPlan (delivered 33 Gy only to PTV1) by paired t-test. Next, a novel DVH prediction model was developed and its performance was evaluated according to the prediction accuracy (AC) of planning violations. Then, the model was used to simulate the impacts of GTV-to-organs at risk (OAR) distance and gastrointestinal (GI) OAR volume variations on planning feasibility.ResultsSignificant dose increases were observed in GI-OARs in SIB-SBRT plans when compared with InitPlan. All dose constraints were met in 63% of cases in InitPlan, Boost1, and Boost2, whereas Boost3 developed DVH violations in all cases. Utilizing previous patient anatomy, the novel DVH prediction model achieved a high AC in the prediction of violations for GI-OARs; the positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and AC were 66%, 90%, and 84%, respectively. Experiments with the model demonstrated that the larger proximity volume of GI-OAR at the shorter distance substantially impacted on planning violations.ConclusionsSIB-SBRT plan with geometrically defined prophylactic areas can be dosimetrically feasible, but including all nodal areas with 25 Gy in five fractions appears to be unrealistic.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) and involved-field irradiation (IFI) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC) receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (nCRTS). MATERIAL AND METHODS:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and major meetings were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared at least two of the following treatment regimens: nCRTS, neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (nCTS), and surgery (S) alone. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcomes of interest, reported as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare all regimens simultaneously. RESULTS:Twenty-nine RCTs with a total of 5212 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both nCRTS adopting ENI (nCRTS-ENI) (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48-0.83) and nCRTS adopting IFI (nCRTS-IFI) (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66-0.86) significantly improved OS compared to S alone. No significant differences in OS, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, R0 resection and postoperative mortality were observed between nCRTS-ENI and nCRTS-IFI. In subgroup analyses, nCRTS-IFI showed a significant OS advantage over nCTS (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.96) and S alone (HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.68) for esophagus squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), but nCRTS-ENI did not; nCRTS-ENI using three-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-RT) resulted in an improved OS compared to that with 2D-RT (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34-0.99). Based on treatment ranking in term of OS, nCRTS-IFI (0.90) and nCRTS-ENI (0.96) was ranked the most effective treatment for ESCC and esophagus adenocarcinoma (EAC), respectively. CONCLUSION:Either adopting ENI or IFI, nCRTS is likely to be the optimal treatment for resectable EC, and nCRTS-IFI and nCRTS-ENI seem to be more effective for patients with ESCC and EAC, respectively. Future head to head comparison trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Project description:BackgroundDefinitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (dCCRT) is suggested as the standard treatment for cervical esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CESCC). This retrospective propensity study compared the 8-year survival outcomes and acute treatment toxicities of these patients treated with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) versus involved-field irradiation (IFI).Materials and methodsPatients with stage II-IV CESCC treated with dCCRT at the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2020 were enrolled in the study. All the patients were restaged according to the American Joint Commission 8th edition criteria. The propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize the effects of treatment selection bias and potential confounding factors including sex, age, ECOG score, clinical T stage, clinical N stage, clinical TNM stage and radiation dose between the ENI group and IFI group. Survival and the prognostic factors were evaluated.ResultsThe 131 eligible patients underwent ENI (60 patients, 45.8%) or IFI (71 patients, 54.2%). The median follow-up time was 91.1 months (range, 23.8-182.0 months) for all the patients. The median OS, 1-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year OS rates were 44.4 months, 87.8%, 55.1%, 38.3%, and 27.2%, respectively. After PSM, there were 49 patients in each group. The median OS, 1-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year OS rates for ENI and IFI group were 32.0 months, 83.7%, 48.5%, 38.5% and 31.1% versus 45.2 months, 89.8%, 52.5%, 37.5%, 26.1%, respectively (P = 0.966; HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.61-1.61). Similar locoregional control was obtained in both groups. The tendency of leukocytopenia and neutropenia was higher in ENI than in IFI (59.2% vs. 38.8%; P = 0.068 and 30.6% vs. 14.3%; P = 0.089) at the end of dCCRT.ConclusionCervical esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients undergoing definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy has a satisfactory prognosis with organ conservation. The involved-field irradiation might be a better alternative owing to similar overall survival outcomes and local control with less toxicity of myelosuppression.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to analyze whether involved field irradiation (IFI) is associated with improving survival outcomes and reducing adverse events compared with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in patients of esophageal cancer who underwent definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.Summary background dataRadiotherapy plays an important role for not surgery patients. However, the role of radiation target size is still uncertain.MethodsWe searched Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central for English and non-English publications comparing esophageal cancer patients who received radiotherapy with IFI with those with ENI. Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and adverse events related to radiotherapy. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Standard for non-randomized studies. We evaluated the certainty of evidence by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.ResultsTotally, 23 studies with 4120 patients were included. IFI group demonstrated significant improvement in the OS rates at 5 years, but not at 1, 2, and 3 years, compared with the ENI group (pooled Risk Ratio [RR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.90; P = 0.0004; high certainty). In addition, IFI demonstrated a significant decrease in the incidence of grade ≥2 acute esophagitis (AE) (pooled RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90; P = 0.0005; high certainty) and grade ≥3 AE (pooled RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.69; P < 0.00001; high certainty) compared with ENI, but not in the incidence of grades ≥3 acute pneumonia, late esophagitis, and late pneumonia.ConclusionsCompared to ENI, IFI demonstrated significant improvement in OS at 5 years. The addition of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to IFI increased the 5-year OS; however, similar results were not observed with the addition of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy to IFI and ENI. Furthermore, IFI demonstrated a significant decrease in grade ≥2 and grade ≥3 AE, while IMRT demonstrated no difference in the incidence of grade ≥3 AE. IFI and ENI do not differ in the incidence of grades ≥3 acute pneumonia, late esophagitis, and late pneumonia.

Project description:BackgroundLocal recurrence is the most common pattern of failure in head and neck cancer. It can therefore be hypothesised that some of these patients would benefit from an intensified local treatment, such as radiation dose escalation of the primary tumour. This study compares treatment and toxicity outcomes from two different boost modalities in oropharyngeal cancer: simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) and brachytherapy boost.MethodsTwo hundred and forty-four consecutive patients treated with > 72 Gy for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma between 2011 and 2018 at our institution were retrospectively analysed. Data on side effects were collected from a local quality registry and supplemented with a review of medical records. Patients receiving a brachytherapy boost first had external beam radiotherapy consisting of 68 Gy in 2 Gy fractions to the gross tumour volume (GTV), and elective radiotherapy to the neck bilaterally. The brachytherapy boost was typically given using pulsed dose rate, 15 fractions and 0.56-0.66 Gy per fraction [total dose in EQD2 = 75.4-76.8 Gy (α/β = 10)]. The typical dose escalated radiotherapy with external beam radiotherapy only, was delivered using SIB with 74,8 Gy in 2.2 Gy fractions [EQD2 = 76.0 Gy (α/β = 10)] to the primary tumour, 68 Gy in 2 Gy fractions to GTV + 10 mm margin and elective radiotherapy to the neck bilaterally.ResultsDose escalation by SIB was given to 111 patients and brachytherapy boost to 134 patients. The most common type of cancer was base of tongue (55%), followed by tonsillar cancer (42%). The majority of patients had T3- or T4-tumours and 84% were HPV-positive. The 5-year OS was 72,4% (95% CI 66.9-78.3) and the median follow-up was 6.1 years. Comparing the two different dose escalation modalities we found no significant differences in OS or PFS and these results remained after a propensity-score matched analysis was performed. The analysis of grade ≥ 3 side effects showed no significant differences between the two different dose escalation techniques.ConclusionsWe found no significant differences in survival or grade ≥ 3 side effects comparing simultaneous integrated boost and brachytherapy boost as alternative dose escalation modalities in the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer.

Project description:Objectives: To compare treatment plans of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique for esophageal cancer (EC) of different locations using dosimetry and radiobiology. Methods: Forty EC patients were planned for IMRT, VMAT, and HT plans, including 10 cases located in the cervix, upper, middle, and lower thorax, respectively. Dose-volume metrics, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were analyzed to evaluate treatment plans. Results: HT showed significant improvement over IMRT and VMAT in terms of CI (p = 0.007), HI (p < 0.001), and TCP (p < 0.001) in cervical EC. IMRT yielded more superior CI, HI and TCP compared with VMAT and HT in upper and middle thoracic EC (all p < 0.05). Additionally, V30 (27.72 ± 8.67%), mean dose (1801.47 ± 989.58cGy), and NTCP (Niemierko model: 0.44 ± 0.55%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.61 ± 0.59%) of heart in IMRT were sharply reduced than VMAT and HT in middle thoracic EC. For lower thoracic EC, the three techniques offered similar CI and HI (all p > 0.05). But VMAT dramatically lowered liver V30 (9.97 ± 2.84%), and reduced NTCP of lungs (Niemierko model: 0.47 ± 0.48%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 1.41 ± 1.07%) and liver (Niemierko model: 0.10 ± 0.08%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.17 ± 0.17%). Conclusions: HT was a good option for cervical EC with complex target coverage but little lungs and heart involvement as it achieved superior dose conformity and uniformity. Due to potentially improving tumor control and reducing heart dose with acceptable lungs sparing, IMRT was a preferred choice for upper and middle thoracic EC with large lungs involvement. VMAT could ameliorate therapeutic ratio and lower lungs and liver toxicity, which was beneficial for lower thoracic EC with little thoracic involvement but being closer to heart and liver. Individually choosing optimal technique for EC in different location will be warranted.

Project description:ImportanceEffective treatment options for locally advanced esophageal cancer are limited, and rates of local recurrence after standard chemoradiotherapy remain high.ObjectiveTo evaluate toxic effects, local control, and overall survival rates after chemoradiotherapy with a simultaneous integrated boost of radiotherapy dose to the gross tumor and nodal disease for patients with unresectable locally advanced esophageal cancer.Design, setting, and participantsA phase 1/2, single-arm trial was conducted in 46 patients from April 28, 2010, to April 9, 2015 (median follow-up, 52 months [range, 2-86 months]), at a tertiary academic cancer center. Outcomes of the study patients were compared with those of 97 similar patients treated at the same institution from January 10, 2010, to December 5, 2014, as part of the interim analysis. Statistical analysis was performed from December 15, 2018, to February 12, 2019.InterventionsChemoradiotherapy with a simultaneous integrated boost of radiotherapy dose (50.4 Gy to subclinical areas at risk and 63.0 Gy to the gross tumor and involved nodes, all given in 28 fractions) with concurrent docetaxel and capecitabine or fluorouracil.Main outcomes and measuresToxic effects, local (in-field) control, and overall survival rates.ResultsAll 46 patients (11 women and 35 men; median age, 65.5 years [range, 37.3-84.4 years]) received per-protocol therapy, as intensity-modulated photon therapy (39 [85%]) or intensity-modulated proton therapy (7 [15%]); 11 patients (24%) ultimately underwent resection. No patients experienced grade 4 or 5 toxic effects; the 10 acute grade 3 toxic events were esophagitis (4), dysphagia (3), and anorexia (3) and the 3 late grade 3 toxic events were all esophageal strictures. The actuarial local recurrence rates were 22% (95% CI, 11%-35%) at 6 months, 30% (95% CI, 18%-44%) at 1 year, and 33% (95% CI, 20%-46%) at 2 years. Overall, 15 patients (33%) experienced local failure, at a median interval of 5 months (range, 1-24 months). The median overall survival time was 21.5 months (range, 2.3-86.4 months). Exploratory comparison with a 97-patient contemporaneous institutional cohort receiving standard-dose (non-simultaneous integrated boost) chemoradiotherapy showed superior local control (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.92; P = .03) and overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94; P = .02) in the group that received chemoradiotherapy with a simultaneous integrated boost.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that chemoradiotherapy with a simultaneous integrated boost of radiotherapy dose for locally advanced esophageal cancer is well tolerated, with encouraging local control, and thus warrants further study.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01102088.

Dataset Information

A phase I/II radiation dose escalation trial using simultaneous integrated boost technique with elective nodal irradiation and concurrent chemotherapy for unresectable esophageal Cancer.

Publications

A phase I/II radiation dose escalation trial using simultaneous integrated boost technique with elective nodal irradiation and concurrent chemotherapy for unresectable esophageal Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets