| 1. |
- Lindberg, Sara, et al.
(författare)
-
Expanded HILUS Trial: A Pooled Analysis of Risk Factors for Toxicity From Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy of Central and Ultracentral Lung Tumors
- 2023
-
Ingår i: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS. - 0360-3016 .- 1879-355X. ; 117:5, s. 1222-1231
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy for tumors near the central airways implies high-grade toxic effects, as concluded from the HILUS trial. However, the small sample size and relatively few events limited the statistical power of the study. We therefore pooled data from the prospective HILUS trial with retrospective data from patients in the Nordic countries treated outside the prospective study to evaluate toxicity and risk factors for high-grade toxic effects. Methods and Materials: All patients were treated with 56 Gy in 8 fractions. Tumors within 2 cm of the trachea, the mainstem bronchi, the intermediate bronchus, or the lobar bronchi were included. The primary endpoint was toxicity, and the secondary endpoints were local control and overall survival. Clinical and dosimetric risk factors were analyzed for treatment-related fatal toxicity in univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses.Results: Of 230 patients evaluated, grade 5 toxicity developed in 30 patients (13%), of whom 20 patients had fatal bronchopul-monary bleeding. The multivariable analysis revealed tumor compression of the tracheobronchial tree and maximum dose to the mainstem or intermediate bronchus as significant risk factors for grade 5 bleeding and grade 5 toxicity. The 3-year local control and overall survival rates were 84% (95% CI, 80%-90%) and 40% (95% CI, 34%-47%), respectively.Conclusions: Tumor compression of the tracheobronchial tree and high maximum dose to the mainstem or intermediate bronchus increase the risk of fatal toxicity after stereotactic body radiation therapy in 8 fractions for central lung tumors. Simi-lar dose constraints should be applied to the intermediate bronchus as to the mainstem bronchi.
|
|
| 2. |
- Nenoff, Lena, et al.
(författare)
-
Daily Adaptive Proton Therapy : Is it Appropriate to Use Analytical Dose Calculations for Plan Adaption?
- 2020
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. - : Elsevier BV. - 0360-3016. ; 107:4, s. 747-755
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: The accuracy of analytical dose calculations (ADC) and dose uncertainties resulting from anatomical changes are both limiting factors in proton therapy. For the latter, rapid plan adaption is necessary; for the former, Monte Carlo (MC) approaches are increasingly recommended. These, however, are inherently slower than analytical approaches, potentially limiting the ability to rapidly adapt plans. Here, we compare the clinical relevance of uncertainties resulting from both. Methods and Materials: Five patients with non-small cell lung cancer with up to 9 computed tomography (CT) scans acquired during treatment and five paranasal (head and neck) patients with 10 simulated anatomical changes (sinus filling) were analyzed. On the initial planning CT scans, treatment plans were optimized and calculated using an ADC and then recalculated with MC. Additionally, all plans were recalculated (non-adapted) and reoptimized (adapted) on each repeated CT using the same ADC as for the initial plan, and the resulting dose distributions were compared. Results: When comparing analytical and MC calculations in the initial treatment plan and averaged over all patients, 94.2% (non-small cell lung cancer) and 98.5% (head and neck) of voxels had differences <±5%, and only minor differences in clinical target volume (CTV) V95 (average <2%) were observed. In contrast, when recalculating nominal plans on the repeat (anatomically changed) CT scans, CTV V95 degraded by up to 34%. Plan adaption, however, restored CTV V95 differences between adapted and nominal plans to <0.5%. Adapted organ-at-risk doses remained the same or improved. Conclusions: Dose degradations caused by anatomic changes are substantially larger than uncertainties introduced by the use of analytical instead of MC dose calculations. Thus, if the use of analytical calculations can enable more rapid and efficient plan adaption than MC approaches, they can and should be used for plan adaption for these patient groups.
|
|
