Dataset Information

Total skin electron beam therapy for cutaneous T-cell lymphomas in the Netherlands: A retrospective analysis of treatment outcomes and selection for high or low dose schedule.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Total skin electron beam therapy (TSEBT) is used mostly in the treatment of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. In this study we describe the results of TSEBT applied in the Netherlands using two different schedules, a conventional dose schedule of 35 Gy and a low-dose schedule of 12 Gy. We aimed to evaluate the treatment results in and compare treatment outcomes between the two treatment groups and to further define indications for both doses.

Methods

In the LUMC, Leiden, we performed a retrospective analysis of 51 patients treated with TSEBT between January 2008 and December 2018, with follow-up untill December 2019. Thirty one patients were treated with 35 Gy and twenty with 12 Gy. The dose was chosen based on the severity of skin involvement. Outcome measures were time to meaningful progression, survival, response rate and toxicity.

Results

Time to meaningful progression was 5.1 months with no significant differences between dose groups (P = 0.77). Overall survival was 27.4 months. Both time to progression and survival were significantly better for T2 vs T3 stage. Overall response rate was 80.4 %. Both dose groups showed improvement of symptoms. Treatment was generally well tolerated.

Conclusions

Both high-dose and low-dose TSEBT offer similar results for TMP and OS. It remains unclear which patients benefit most from a high-dose schedule. We propose to use the low-dose schedule as a standard for TSEBT and use supplementary boosts or escalation to high-dose treatment for patients unresponsive to the low-dose schedule.

SUBMITTER: Smits K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8787769 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeA lower proportion of CD8+ tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in mycosis fungoides (MF) patients is associated with worse survival. However, it is not known whether circulating CD4:CD8 ratio is a prognosticator of response to total skin electron beam therapy (TSEBT).Methods and materialsWe identified 126 MF patients treated with TSEBT from 2001 to 20014 at two high-volume academic centers. Circulating CD4:CD8 ratio was obtained within 1 week before TSEBT. TSEBT was delivered with 6-9mEV electrons with low (12 Gy) or conventional (≥12 Gy) doses. Treatment response was assessed with the modified Severity Weighted Assessment Tool (mSWAT). Post-treatment mSWAT decrease of ≥75% was classified as near complete response (CR) while mSWAT decrease of <75% was considered partial response (PR). Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined an optimal CD4:CD8 threshold value to predict TSEBT response in the derivation cohort and was applied to an external validation cohort.Results71.4% and 28.6% of patients achieved CR and PR after TSEBT. Higher CD4:CD8 ratio predicted poorer response: median CD4:CD8 in patients with PR vs. CR was 4.84 vs. 1.97 (p = 0.002). A threshold CD4:CD8 of 4.42 optimally discriminated in the discovery cohort patients with PR vs. XR (sensitivity 90%, specificity 59%, area under curve (AUC) = 0.71; p = 0.002). Within an independent test cohort (n = 32), 73.9% of patients with CD4:CD8 <4.42 achieved CR vs. 33.3% of those with CD4:CD8 ≥4.42 (p = 0.033). Among all patients with CD4:CD8 <4.42 (n = 73), 74% achieved CR with low-dose TSEBT vs. 93% with conventional dose TSEBT (p = 0.02). On multivariable logistic regression, CD4:CD8 remained a significant independent predictor of TSEBT response in all patients (OR = 0.107, 95% CI 0.395-0.290, p < 0.001).ConclusionPeripheral blood CD4:CD8 ratio was a significant independent predictor of TSEBT response of MF patients as validated in an independent cohort at separate academic center. The potential for CD4:CD8 ratio as a biomarker to inform radiation treatment dosing warrants further investigation.

Project description:In the present work, we investigated the accuracy of the electron pencil-beam redefinition algorithm (PBRA) in calculating central-axis percent depth dose in water for rectangular fields. The PBRA energy correction factor C(E) was determined so that PBRA-calculated percent depth dose best matched the percent depth dose measured in water. The hypothesis tested was that a method can be implemented into the PBRA that will enable the algorithm to calculate central-axis percent depth dose in water at a 100-cm source-to-surface distance (SSD) with an accuracy of 2% or 1-mm distance to agreement for rectangular field sizes > or = 2 x 2 cm. Preliminary investigations showed that C(E), determined using a single percent depth dose for a large field (that is, having side-scatter equilibrium), was insufficient for the PBRA to accurately calculate percent depth dose for all square fields > or = 2 x 2 cm. Therefore, two alternative methods for determining C(E) were investigated. In Method 1, C(E), modeled as a polynomial in energy, was determined by fitting the PBRA calculations to individual rectangular-field percent depth doses. In Method 2, C(E) for square fields, described by a polynomial in both energy and side of square W [that is, C = C(E,W)], was determined by fitting the PBRA calculations to measured percent depth dose for a small number of square fields. Using the function C(E,W), C(E) for other square fields was determined, and C(E) for rectangular field sizes was determined using the geometric mean of C(E) for the two measured square fields of the dimension of the rectangle (square root method). Using both methods, PBRA calculations were evaluated by comparison with measured square-field and derived rectangular-field percent depth doses at 100-cm SSD for the Siemens Primus radiotherapy accelerator equipped with a 25 x 25-cm applicator at 10 MeV and 15 MeV. To improve the fit of C(E) and C(E,W) to the electron component of percent depth dose, it was necessary to modify the PBRA's photon depth dose model to include dose buildup. Results showed that, using both methods, the PBRA was able to predict percent depth dose within criteria for all square and rectangular fields. Results showed that second- or third-order polynomials in energy (Methods 1 and 2) and in field size (Method 2) were typically required. Although the time for dose calculation using Method 1 is approximately twice that using Method 2, we recommend that Method 1 be used for clinical implementation of the PBRA because it is more accurate (most measured depth doses predicted within approximately 1%) and simpler to implement.