Report on planning comparison of VMAT, IMRT and helical tomotherapy for the ESCALOX-trial pre-study

Background: The ESCALOX trial was designed as a multicenter, randomized prospective dose escalation study for head and neck cancer. Therefore, feasibility of treatment planning via diferent treatment planning systems (TPS) and radiotherapy (RT) techniques is essential. We hypothesized the comparability of dose distributions for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) volumes respecting the constraints by diferent TPS and RT techniques. Methods: CT data sets of the frst six patients (all male, mean age: 61.3 years) of the pre-study (up to 77 Gy) were used for comparison of IMRT, VMAT, and helical tomotherapy (HT). Oropharynx was the primary tumor location. Normalization of the three step SIB (77 Gy, 70 Gy, 56 Gy) was D95%=77 Gy. Coverage (CVF), healthy tissue conformity index (HTCI), conformation number (CN), and dose homogeneity (HI) were compared for PTVs and conformation index (COIN) for parotids. Results: All RT techniques achieved good coverage. For SIB77Gy, CVF was best for IMRT and VMAT, HT achieved highest CN followed by VMAT and IMRT. HT reached good HTCI value, and HI compared to both other techniques. For SIB70Gy, CVF was best by IMRT. HTCI favored HT, consequently CN as well. HI was slightly better for HT. For SIB56Gy, CVF resulted comparably. Conformity favors VMAT as seen by HTCI and CN. Dmean of ipsilateral and contralateral parotids favor HT. Conclusion: Diferent TPS for dose escalation reliably achieved high plan quality. Despite the very good results of HT planning for coverage, conformity, and homogeneity, the TPS also achieved acceptable results for IMRT and VMAT

Comparison of neoadjuvant chemoradiation with carboplatin/ paclitaxel or cisplatin/ 5-fluoruracil in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus

Abstract Purpose Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) is the treatment of choice for patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCC). Today radiation oncologists can choose between two different therapy regimes including chemoradiation with cisplatin and 5-fluoruracil (CDDP/5FU) and chemoradiation analogue to the CROSS-regime with carboplatin and paclitaxel (Carb/TAX). However, there is a lack of studies comparing these regimes, especially for the subgroup of patients with SCC. In this study, we want to compare nCRT with CDDP/5FU and nCRT with Carb/TAX for patients with locally advanced SCC. Patients and methods We retrospectively compared 20 patients who were scheduled for nCRT with a total radiation dose of 41.4 Gy (daily dose of 1.8 Gy) and weekly chemotherapy with carboplatin (Area under the curve 2) and Paclitaxel (50 mg per square meter of body-surface area) according to the CROSS-regime to 31 patients who were scheduled for nCRT with a total radiation dose of 45 Gy (daily dose of 1.8 Gy) and simultaneous chemotherapy with cisplatin (20 mg/m2/d) and 5-fluoruracil (500 mg/m2/d) on day 1–5 and day 29–33. For the per-protocol (PP) analysis, per protocol treatment was defined as either complete radiation with 41.4 Gy, at least three complete cycles of Carb/TAX and subsequent surgery or complete radiation with 45 Gy, at least one complete cycle of CDDP/5FU and subsequent surgery. Results Fifty-one patients (31 patients treated with CDDP/5FU and 20 patients treated with Carb/TAX) were evaluated for the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and 44 patients (26 patients treated with CDDP/5FU and 18 patients treated with Carb/TAX) were evaluated for the PP analysis. No significant differences were seen for baseline and tumor characteristics like age, sex, TNM-stage, grading and tumor extension between patients treated with Carb/TAX and patients treated with CDDP/5FU. The most common tumor regression grade after nCRT was grade I as classified by Becker et al., which was observed in 84 and 79% of patients. No significant differences in tumor regression grades were seen between both regimes. Postoperative insufficiency of the anastomosis was seen in 6 patients (33%) who were treated with Carb/TAX and 4 patients (15%) who were treated with CDDP/5FU (p = 0.273). Patients treated with CDDP/5FU developed significantly more cumulative hematologic III° (CTCAE) toxicities (58% vs 20%; p = 0.010) than patients treated with Carb/TAX. In contrast to that, there was no significant difference for overall survival (OS) and freedom from relapse (FFR) between treatment groups. Conclusion In this retrospective analysis, no significant difference was seen for OS and FFR between nCRT with CDDP/5FU and nCRT with Carb/TAX. However, the application of CDDP/5FU was associated with significantly more hematologic III°- toxicities compared to Carb/TAX. Future prospective trials should investigate if these results are reproducible in randomized patient cohorts

MRI- and CT-determined changes of dysphagia / aspiration-related structures (DARS) during and after radiotherapy.

PurposeThe concept of dysphagia/aspiration-related structures (DARS) was developed against the background of severe late side effects of radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC). DARS can be delineated on CT scans, but with a better morphological discrimination on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Swallowing function was analyzed by use of patient charts and prospective investigations and questionnaires.MethodSeventeen HNC patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) ± chemotherapy between 5/2012 - 8/2015 were included. Planning CT (computed tomography) scans and MRIs (magnetic resonance imaging) prior, during 40 Gray (Gy) radiotherapy and posttreatment were available and co-registered to delineate DARS. The RT dose of each DARS was calculated. Five patients were investigated posttreatment for swallowing function and assessed by means of various questionnaires for quality of life (QoL), swallowing, and voice function.ResultsBy retrospective comparison of DARS volume, a significant change in four of eight DARS was detected over time. Three increased and one diminished. The risk of posttreatment dysphagia rose by every 1Gy above the mean dose (D mean) of RT to DARS. 7.5 was the risk factor for dysphagia in the first 6 months, reducing to 4.7 for months 6-12 posttreatment. For all five patients of the prospective part of swallowing investigations, a function disturbance was detected. These results were in contrast to the self-assessment of patients by questionnaires. There was neither a dose dependency of D mean DARS volume changes over time nor of dysphonia and no correlation between volume changes, dysphagia or dysphonia.ConclusionDelineation of DARS on MRI co-registered to planning CT gave the opportunity to differentiate morphology better than by CT alone. Due to the small number of patients with complete MRI scans over time, we failed to detect a dose dependency of DARS and swallowing and voice disorder posttreatment

Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiation in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus

Abstract Background Multimodal treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery (nCRT + S) is the treatment of choice for patients with locally advanced or node-positive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (E-SCC). Those who are unsuitable or who decline surgery can be treated with definitive chemoradiation (dCRT). This study compares the oncologic outcome of nCRT + S and dCRT in E-SCC patients. Methods Between 2011 and 2017, 95 patients with E-SCC were scheduled for dCRT or nCRT+ S with IMRT at our department. Patients undergoing dCRT received at least 50 Gy and those undergoing nCRT + S received at least 41.4 Gy. All patients received simultaneous chemotherapy with either carboplatin and paclitaxel or cisplatin and 5-fluoruracil. We retrospectively compared baseline characteristics and oncologic outcome including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and site of failure between both treatment groups. Results Patients undergoing dCRT were less likely to have clinically suspected lymph node metastases (85% vs. 100%, p = 0.019) than patients undergoing nCRT + S and had more proximally located tumors (median distance from dental arch to cranial tumor border 20 cm vs. 26 cm, p < 0.001). After a median follow up of 25.6 months for surviving patients, no significant differences for OS and PFS were noticed comparing nCRT + S and dCRT. However, the rate of local tumor recurrence was significantly higher in patients treated with dCRT than in those treated with nCRT + S (38% vs. 10%, p = 0.002). Within a multivariate Cox regression model, age, tumor location, and tumor grading were the only independent parameters affecting OS and PFS. In addition to that, proximal tumor location was the only parameter independently associated with an increased risk for local treatment failure. Conclusion In E-SCC patients treated with either dCRT or nCRT + S, a higher rate of local tumor recurrence was seen in patients treated with dCRT than in patients treated with nCRT + S. There was at least a trend towards an improved OS and PFS in patients undergoing nCRT + S. However, this should be interpreted with caution, because proximal tumor location was the only parameter independently affecting the risk of local tumor recurrence

Low-Energy X-Ray Intraoperative Radiation Therapy (Lex-IORT) for Resected Brain Metastases: A Single-Institution Experience

Background: Resection followed by local radiation therapy (RT) is the standard of care for symptomatic brain metastases. However, the optimal technique, fractionation scheme and dose are still being debated. Lately, low-energy X-ray intraoperative RT (lex-IORT) has been of increasing interest. Method: Eighteen consecutive patients undergoing BM resection followed by immediate lex-IORT with 16–30 Gy applied to the spherical applicator were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic, RT-specific, radiographic and clinical data were reviewed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IORT for BM. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan–Meyer analysis were applied. Results: The mean follow-up time was 10.8 months (range, 0–39 months). The estimated local control (LC), distant brain control (DBC) and overall survival (OS) at 12 months post IORT were 92.9% (95%-CI 79.3–100%), 71.4% (95%-CI 50.2–92.6%) and 58.0% (95%-CI 34.1–81.9%), respectively. Two patients developed radiation necrosis (11.1%) and wound infection (CTCAE grade III); both had additional adjuvant treatment after IORT. For five patients (27.8%), the time to the start or continuation of systemic treatment was ≤15 days and hence shorter than wound healing and adjuvant RT would have required. Conclusion: In accordance with previous series, this study demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of IORT in the management of brain metastases despite the small cohort and the retrospective characteristic of this analysis