Dataset Information

Conformal Avoidance of Normal Organs at Risk by Perfusion-Modulated Dose Sculpting in Tumor Single-Dose Radiation Therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Although 24 Gy single-dose radiation therapy (SDRT) renders >90% 5-year local relapse-free survival in human solid tumor lesions, SDRT delivery is not feasible in ∼50% of oligometastatic lesions owing to interference by dose/volume constraints of a serial organ at risk (OAR). Conformal OAR avoidance is based on a hypothetical model positing that the recently described SDRT biology specifically permits volumetric subdivision of the SDRT dose, such that high-intensity vascular drivers of SDRT lethality, generated within a major tumor subvolume exposed to a high 24 Gy dose (high-dose planning target volume [PTV_HD]), would equilibrate SDRT signaling intensity throughout the tumor interstitial space, rendering bystander radiosensitization of a minor subvolume (perfusion-modulated dose sculpting PTV [PTV_PMDS]), dose-sculpted to meet a serial OAR dose/volume constraint. An engineered PTV_PMDS may thus yield tumor ablation despite PMDS dose reduction and conformally avoiding OAR exposure to a toxic dose.

Methods and materials

Dose fall-off within the PTV_PMDS penumbra of oligometastatic lesions was planned and delivered by intensity modulated inverse dose painting. SDRT- and SDRT-PMDS-treated lesions were followed with periodic positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging to assess local tumor control.

Results

Cumulative baseline 5-year local relapse rates of oligometastases treated with 24 Gy SDRT alone (8% relapses, n = 292) were similar in moderate PTV_PMDS dose-sculpted (23-18 Gy, n = 76, 11% relapses, P = .36) and extreme dose-sculpted (<18 Gy, n = 61, 14% relapses, P = .29) lesions, provided the major 24 Gy PTV_HD constituted ≥60% of the total PTV. In contrast, 28% of local relapses occurred in 26 extreme dose-sculpted PTV_PMDS lesions when PTV_HD constituted <60% of the total PTV (P = .004), suggesting a threshold for the PTV_PMDS bystander effect.

Conclusion

The study provides compelling clinical support for the bystander radiosensitization hypothesis, rendering local cure of tumor lesions despite a ≥25% PTV_PMDS dose reduction of the 24 Gy PTV_HD dose, adapted to conformally meet OAR dose/volume constraints. The SDRT-PMDS approach thus provides a therapeutic resolution to otherwise radioablation-intractable oligometastatic disease.

SUBMITTER: Greco C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8456416 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo compare long-term outcomes and late toxicity between patients treated with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and with dose-escalated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as salvage radiation therapy (SRT) after prostatectomy.Methods and materialsA total of 110 patients who had been treated at our institution between 2010 and 2018 with SRT for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy were included. The patients were treated either by 3D-CRT with 64 Gy (59 patients) or by IMRT with 70 Gy (51 patients). The irradiation target was the prostate bed only (106 patients) or the prostate bed and pelvic region (4 patients). Twelve patients (11%) received concurrent androgen deprivation therapy. The differences in clinical outcomes and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups were retrospectively assessed. Toxicities were recorded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression after SRT was defined as an increase in the serum PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL from the PSA nadir after SRT and confirmed by a second PSA measurement that was higher than the first.ResultsThe median follow-up time was 7.8 years for 3D-CRT (range:,0.3-9.2 years) and 3.1 years for IMRT (range, 0.4-7.2 years). There was no significant difference in the 4-year biochemical no-evidence-of-disease (bNED) rate between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups (43.5% vs 52.1%; P = .20). Toxicity analysis showed no significant difference in late GI or GU toxicities of grade 2 or greater between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups. The respective 4-year cumulative rates of toxicity in the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups were as follows: grade ≥2 GI toxicity, 8.8% and 4.4% (P = .42); grade ≥2 GU toxicity, 19.1% and 20.3% (P = .93); and grade ≥2 hematuria, 5.3% and 8.0% (P = .67). In the 3D-CRT group, the 8-year cumulative rates of GI toxicity, GU toxicity, and hematuria of grade 2 or greater were 8.8%, 28.4%, and 12.6%, respectively.ConclusionsDose-escalated IMRT showed no improvements in bNED or late toxicity compared with 3D-CRT. In addition, the results suggest that GU toxicity can occur after a long period (even after 6 years), whereas GI toxicity is seldom newly observed after 4 years.

Project description:PurposeTo give a preliminary report of clinical and treatment factors associated with toxicity in men receiving high-dose radiation therapy (RT) on a phase 3 dose-escalation trial.Methods and materialsThe trial was initiated with 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) and amended after 1 year to allow intensity modulated RT (IMRT). Patients treated with 3D-CRT received 55.8 Gy to a planning target volume that included the prostate and seminal vesicles, then 23.4 Gy to prostate only. The IMRT patients were treated to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles to 79.2 Gy. Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer late morbidity scores were used for acute and late effects.ResultsOf 763 patients randomized to the 79.2-Gy arm of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 protocol, 748 were eligible and evaluable: 491 and 257 were treated with 3D-CRT and IMRT, respectively. For both bladder and rectum, the volumes receiving 65, 70, and 75 Gy were significantly lower with IMRT (all P<.0001). For grade (G) 2+ acute gastrointestinal/genitourinary (GI/GU) toxicity, both univariate and multivariate analyses showed a statistically significant decrease in G2+ acute collective GI/GU toxicity for IMRT. There were no significant differences with 3D-CRT or IMRT for acute or late G2+ or 3+ GU toxicities. Univariate analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in late G2+ GI toxicity for IMRT (P=.039). On multivariate analysis, IMRT showed a 26% reduction in G2+ late GI toxicity (P=.099). Acute G2+ toxicity was associated with late G3+ toxicity (P=.005). With dose-volume histogram data in the multivariate analysis, RT modality was not significant, whereas white race (P=.001) and rectal V70 ≥15% were associated with G2+ rectal toxicity (P=.034).ConclusionsIntensity modulated RT is associated with a significant reduction in acute G2+ GI/GU toxicity. There is a trend for a clinically meaningful reduction in late G2+ GI toxicity with IMRT. The occurrence of acute GI toxicity and large (>15%) volumes of rectum >70 Gy are associated with late rectal toxicity.

Project description:There has been rapid adoption of newer radiation treatments such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton therapy despite greater cost and limited demonstrated benefit compared with previous technologies.To determine the comparative morbidity and disease control of IMRT, proton therapy, and conformal radiation therapy for primary prostate cancer treatment.Population-based study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked data from 2000 through 2009 for patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.Rates of gastrointestinal and urinary morbidity, erectile dysfunction, hip fractures, and additional cancer therapy.Use of IMRT vs conformal radiation therapy increased from 0.15% in 2000 to 95.9% in 2008. In propensity score-adjusted analyses (N = 12,976), men who received IMRT vs conformal radiation therapy were less likely to receive a diagnosis of gastrointestinal morbidities (absolute risk, 13.4 vs 14.7 per 100 person-years; relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96) and hip fractures (absolute risk, 0.8 vs 1.0 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93) but more likely to receive a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction (absolute risk, 5.9 vs 5.3 per 100 person-years; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20). Intensity-modulated radiation therapy patients were less likely to receive additional cancer therapy (absolute risk, 2.5 vs 3.1 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89). In a propensity score-matched comparison between IMRT and proton therapy (n = 1368), IMRT patients had a lower rate of gastrointestinal morbidity (absolute risk, 12.2 vs 17.8 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79). There were no significant differences in rates of other morbidities or additional therapies between IMRT and proton therapy.Among patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer, the use of IMRT compared with conformal radiation therapy was associated with less gastrointestinal morbidity and fewer hip fractures but more erectile dysfunction; IMRT compared with proton therapy was associated with less gastrointestinal morbidity.