Dataset Information

Definitive Simultaneous Integrated Boost Versus Conventional-Fractionated Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Patients With Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of simultaneous integrated boost-intensity modulated radiotherapy (SIB-IMRT) and conventional fractionated-IMRT (CF-IMRT) for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Methods

The data of 1173 patients treated with either CF-IMRT or SIB-IMRT for a curative intent from 2005 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to create a well-balanced cohort of 687 patients at 1:2 ratio (237 patients in SIB-IMRT group and 450 patients in CF-IMRT group). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), recurrence pattern, and toxicity profiles were evaluated and compared between the two groups after PSM.

Results

After a median follow-up time of 42.3 months (range, 3.0-153.2 months) for surviving patients, survival results were comparable in the two groups. After PSM, the 1-year, 2-year and 4-year OS rates in the SIB-IMRT and CF-IMRT groups were 70.0% vs. 66.4%, 41.9% vs. 41.7% and 30.2% vs. 27.6%, respectively (p = 0.87). The 1-year, 2-year and 4-year PFS rates were 48.4% vs. 49.1%, 31.2% vs. 29.4%, and 26.1% vs. 17.9%, respectively (p = 0.64). Locoregional recurrence (p = 0.32) and distant metastasis (p = 0.54) rates were also comparable between two groups. The toxicity profile was similar in the two groups. Multivariate analyses in the matched samples showed that female, concurrent chemotherapy and earlier clinical stage were independently associated with longer OS and PFS.

Conclusions

SIB-IMRT appears to be equivalent to CF-IMRT in treatment efficacy and safety, and could become an alternative option for definitive radiotherapy of ESCC.

SUBMITTER: Li C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8256744 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe literature regarding esophageal fistula after definitive concurrent chemotherapy and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains lacking. We aimed to investigate the risk factors of esophageal fistula among ESCC patients undergoing definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) via IMRT technique.MethodsA total of 129 consecutive ESCC patients receiving definitive CCRT with IMRT between 2008 and 2018 were reviewed. The cumulative incidence of esophageal fistula and survival of patients were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups by the log-rank test. The risk factors of esophageal fistula were determined with multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.ResultsMedian follow-up was 14.9 months (IQR, 7.0-28.8). Esophageal perforation was identified in 20 (15.5%) patients, resulting in esophago-pleural fistula in nine, esophago-tracheal fistula in seven, broncho-esophageal fistula in two, and aorto-esophageal fistula in two patients. The median interval from IMRT to the occurrence of esophageal fistula was 4.4 months (IQR, 3.3-10.1). Patients with esophageal fistula had an inferior median overall survival (10.0 vs. 17.2 months, p = 0.0096). T4 (HR, 3.776; 95% CI, 1.383-10.308; p = 0.010) and esophageal stenosis (HR, 2.601; 95% CI, 1.053-6.428; p = 0.038) at baseline were the independent risk factors for esophageal fistula. The cumulative incidence of esophageal fistula was higher in patients with T4 (p = 0.018) and pre-treatment esophageal stenosis (p = 0.045). There was a trend toward better survival after esophageal fistula among patients receiving repair or stenting for the fistula than those only undergoing conservative treatments (median survival, 5.9 vs. 0.9 months, p = 0.058).ConclusionsT4 and esophageal stenosis at baseline independently increased the risk of esophageal fistula in ESCC treated by definitive CCRT with IMRT. There existed a trend toward improved survival after the fistula among patients receiving repair or stenting for esophageal perforation.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SIB-IMRT) versus standard-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SD-IMRT) in the treatment of locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.MethodsFrom July 2003 to March 2014, 1748 patients in a single center who received definitive chemoradiotherapy were included in the analysis. A total of 109 patients who underwent SIB-IMRT and fulfilled all inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified as the study group. A total of 266 patients who underwent SD-IMRT (60 Gy/30 fractions, 2 Gy/fraction, 1 time/day, 5 times/week) during the same period were selected as the control group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline characteristics. Survival status, treatment failure mode, and the occurrence of adverse events were compared between the two groups.ResultsThere were more women and more cervical and upper thoracic cancers (P = 0.038, < 0.001, respectively) in the SIB-IMRT group before case matching. The median progression-free survival (PFS) in the SD-IMRT and SIB-IMRT groups was 22 and 19 months, respectively, and the median overall survival duration was 24 and 22 months, respectively, with χ2 = 0.244 and P = 0.621. After PSM of 1:1, 138 patients entered the final analysis (69 cases from each group). The median PFS of the SD-IMRT group and the SIB-IMRT group was 13 and 18 months, respectively, with χ2 = 8.776 and P = 0.003. The 1‑, 3‑, and 5‑year overall survival rates were 66.7, 21.7, and 8.7% and 65.2, 36.2, and 27.3%, respectively, and the median overall survival duration was 16 and 22 months, respectively, with χ2 = 5.362 and P = 0.021. Treatment failure mode: 5‑year local regional recurrence rates of SD-IMRT and SIB-IMRT were 50.7 and 36.2%, respectively, with χ2 = 2.949 and P = 0.086. The 5‑year distant metastasis rates of the two groups were 36.2 and 24.6%, respectively, with χ2 = 2.190 and P = 0.139.Adverse events3 patients experienced grade 4-5 toxicity (2.2%), including one case of grade 4 radiation esophagitis and two cases of grade 5 radiation pneumonitis, all in the SD-IMRT group; 14 patients experienced grade 3 adverse events (10.1%), primarily including radiation esophagitis, radiation pneumonitis, and hematological toxicity.ConclusionThe technique of SIB-IMRT was safe and reliable compared with SD-IMRT. In addition, SIB-IMRT had locoregional control advantages and potential survival benefits.

Project description:BackgroundRadiation therapy and chemoradiation therapy play a major role in the definitive management of esophageal cancer. Survival in esophageal cancer patients is still relatively poor, mostly due to high rates of local recurrence and distant metastases. It is hypothesized that dose escalation in radiotherapy could improve outcomes. Therefore, this retrospective analysis aimed to investigate the outcomes and toxicity in patients treated with local dose escalation by means of using simultaneous integrated boost concepts.MethodsBetween 2012 and 2018, 101 patients with esophageal carcinoma were analyzed in this monocentric, retrospective study. All patients received definitive chemoradiation or radiation therapy alone as intensity modulated radiotherapy. The prescribed dose was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions to the primary tumor and the elective lymph nodes as well as a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) with 58.8 Gy to macroscopic tumor and lymph node metastases. Endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), local control rate (LCR) and toxicity.Results60 patients (59.4%) received chemoradiation, 41 patients (40.6%) radiotherapy alone. The median follow up was 17 months (range 0-75 months). OS, PFS and LCR were at 63.9%, 53.9% and 59.9% after 1 year and 37.6%, 34.5% and 36.1%, respectively after 3 years. 16 patients (15.8%) in total developed a locoregional recurrence within the field of radiation. In 48 patients (47.5%) at least one grade III° (CTCAE) toxicity was documented during radiotherapy, mostly dysphagia (36 pat., 75%). One patient suffered from a grade IV° pneumonia.ConclusionThis retrospective analysis demonstrates that a SIB concept in definitive (chemo)radiation therapy is safe and feasible, showing acceptable outcomes in this patient cohort. Considering that this cohort mainly consists of elderly patients not eligible for chemotherapy in many cases, we emphasize the aspect of SIB radiation therapy as potential partial compensation for omitted simultaneous chemotherapy. Prospective studies are needed for validation.

Project description:BackgroundThe literature regarding pericardial effusion after definitive concurrent chemotherapy and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for esophageal cancer was lacking. This study aimed to investigate the risk factors of pericardial effusion in esophageal cancer patients undergoing definitive concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT.MethodsA total of 126 consecutive esophageal cancer patients treated with definitive concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT between 2008 and 2018 were reviewed. The pericardial effusion was determined on computed tomography scan of the chest and graded by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. The cumulative incidence of pericardial effusion was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups by the log-rank test. The risk factors of pericardial effusion were determined with multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.ResultsThe median follow-up time was 14.0 months. Thirty-seven (29.4%) patients had pericardial effusion after a median interval of 6.6 months since the end of IMRT. The cumulative incidence of pericardial effusion of any grade was higher in patients with mean heart dose > 23.45 Gy (p = 0.00018), heart V30 > 33.55% (p = 0.00015), mean pericardium dose > 20.33 Gy (p = 0.00027), and pericardium V20 > 42.55% (p = 0.00018). Furthermore, eight (6.3%) patients had symptoms related to pericardial effusion and were considered as cases with pericardial effusion ≥ grade 3. The cumulative incidence of pericardial effusion ≥ grade 3 was higher in patients with pericardium V30 > 65.80% (p = 0.00028), V40 > 55.35% (p < 0.0001), and V60 > 24.70% (p = 0.0021). Multivariate analyses showed the above dose-volume parameters predicted the risk of pericardial effusion in esophageal cancer.ConclusionsDose-volume parameters predicting the risk of pericardial effusion were identified in esophageal cancer treated with definitive concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT. They could be applied as constraints of IMRT for esophageal cancer.

Project description:PurposeWhile intensity modulated proton therapy can deliver simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) with high precision, it is sensitive to anatomic changes. We investigated the dosimetric effects from these changes based on pretreatment cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images and identified the most important factors using a multilayer perceptron neural network (MLPNN).Methods and materialsDILs were contoured based on coregistered multiparametric magnetic resonance images for 25 previously treated prostate cancer patients. SIB plans were created with (1) prostate clinical target volume - V70 Gy = 98%; (2) DIL - V98 Gy > 95%; and (3) all organs at risk (OARs)"?> within clinical constraints. SIB plans were applied to daily CBCT-based deformed planning computed tomography (CT)"?>. DIL - V98 Gy, bladder/rectum maximum dose (Dmax) and volume changes, femur shifts, and the distance from DIL to organs at riskOARs"?> in both planning computed tomogramsCT"?> and CBCT were calculated. Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests were used to compare the changes. MLPNNs were used to model the change in ΔDIL - V98 Gy > 10% and bladder/rectum Dmax > 80 Gy, and the relative importance factors for the model were provided. The performances of the models were evaluated with receiver operating characteristic curves.ResultsComparing initial plan to the average from evaluation plans, respectively, DIL - V98 Gy was 89.3% ± 19.9% versus 86.2% ± 21.3% (P = .151); bladder Dmax 71.9 ± 0.6 Gy versus 74.5 ± 2.9 Gy (P < .001); and rectum Dmax 70.1 ± 2.4 Gy versus 74.9 ± 9.1Gy (P = .007). Bladder and rectal volumes were 99.6% ± 39.5% and 112.8% ± 27.2%, respectively, of their initial volume. The femur shift was 3.16 ± 2.52 mm. In the modeling of ΔDIL V98 Gy > 10%, DIL to rectum distance changes, DIL to bladder distance changes, and rectum volume changes ratio are the 3 most important factors. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.89, 1.00, and 0.99 for the modeling of ΔDIL - V98 Gy > 10%, and bladder and rectum Dmax > 80 Gy, respectively.ConclusionsDosimetric changes in DIL SIB with intensity modulated proton therapy can be modeled and classified based on anatomic changes on pretreatment images by an MLPNN.