Comparative effectiveness of intensity modulated radiation therapy to 3-dimensional conformal radiation in locally advanced lung cancer: pathological and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has better normal-tissue sparing compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiation (3DCRT). We sought to assess the impact of radiation technique on pathological and clinical outcomes in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LANSCLC) treated with a trimodality strategy. METHODS: Retrospective review of LANSCLC patients treated from August 2012 to August 2018 at Sheba Medical Center, Israel. The trimodality strategy consisted of concomitant chemoradiation to 60 Gray (Gy) followed by completion surgery. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined by co-registered PET/CT. Here we compare the pathological regression, surgical margin status, local control rates (LC), disease free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between 3DCRT and IMRT. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 74 patients with mean age 62.9 years, male in 51/74 (69%), adenocarcinoma in 46/74 (62.1%), stage 3 in 59/74 (79.7%) and chemotherapy in 72/74 (97.3%). Radiation mean dose: 59.2 Gy (SD ± 3.8). Radiation technique : 3DCRT in 51/74 (68.9%), IMRT in 23/74 (31%). Other variables were similar between groups.Major pathological response (including pathological complete response or less than 10% residual tumor cells) was similar: 32/51 (62.7%) in 3DCRT and 15/23 (65.2%) in IMRT, p=0.83. Pathological complete response (pCR) rates were similar: 17/51 (33.3%) in 3DCRT and 8/23 (34.8%) in IMRT, p=0.9. Surgical margins were negative in 46/51 (90.1%) in 3DCRT vs. 17/19 (89.4%) in IMRT (p=1.0).The 2-year LC rates were 81.6% (95% CI 69-89.4%); DFS 58.3% (95% CI 45.5-69%) and 3-year OS 70% (95% CI57-80%). Comparing radiation techniques, there were no significant differences in LC (p=0.94), DFS (p=0.33) and OS (p=0.72). CONCLUSION: When used to treat LANSCLC in the neoadjuvant setting, both IMRT and 3DCRT produce comparable pathological and clinical outcomes. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study validates the real-world effectiveness of IMRT compared to 3DCRT

Urethra-sparing stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: how much can the rectal wall dose be reduced with or without an endorectal balloon?

Abstract Background This is a dosimetric comparative study intended to establish appropriate low-to-intermediate dose-constraints for the rectal wall (Rwall) in the context of a randomized phase-II trial on urethra-sparing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. The effect of plan optimization on low-to-intermediate Rwall dose and the potential benefit of an endorectal balloon (ERB) are investigated. Methods Ten prostate cancer patients, simulated with and without an ERB, were planned to receive 36.25Gy (7.25Gyx5) to the planning treatment volume (PTV) and 32.5Gy to the urethral planning risk volume (uPRV). Reference plans with and without the ERB, optimized with respect to PTV and uPRV coverage objectives and the organs at risk dose constraints, were further optimized using a standardized stepwise approach to push down dose constraints to the Rwall in the low to intermediate range in five sequential steps to obtain paired plans with and without ERB (Vm1 to Vm5). Homogeneity index for the PTV and the uPRV, and the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for the PTV were analyzed. Dosimetric parameters for Rwall including the median dose and the dose received by 10 to 60% of the Rwall, bladder wall (Bwall) and femoral heads (FHeads) were compared. The monitor units (MU) per plan were recorded. Results Vm4 reduced by half D30%, D40%, D50%, and Dmed for Rwall and decreased by a third D60% while HIPTV, HIuPRV and DSC remained stable with and without ERB compared to Vmref. HIPTV worsened at Vm5 both with and without ERB. No statistical differences were observed between paired plans on Rwall, Bwall except a higher D2% for Fheads with and without an ERB. Conclusions Further optimization to the Rwall in the context of urethra sparing prostate SBRT is feasible without compromising the dose homogeneity to the target. Independent of the use or not of an ERB, low-to-intermediate doses to the Rwall can be significantly reduced using a four-step sequential optimization approach

Urethra-Sparing Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Quality Assurance of a Randomized Phase 2 Trial

Purpose: To present the radiation therapy quality assurance results from a prospective multicenter phase 2 randomized trial of short versus protracted urethra-sparing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Between 2012 and 2015, 165 patients with prostate cancer from 9 centers were randomized and treated with SBRT delivered either every other day (arm A, n = 82) or once a week (arm B, n = 83); 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions were prescribed to the prostate with (n = 92) or without (n = 73) inclusion of the seminal vesicles (SV), and the urethra planning-risk volume received 32.5 Gy. Patients were treated either with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT; n = 112) or with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT; n = 53). Deviations from protocol dose constraints, planning target volume (PTV) homogeneity index, PTV Dice similarity coefficient, and number of monitor units for each treatment plan were retrospectively analyzed. Dosimetric results of VMAT versus IMRT and treatment plans with versus without inclusion of SV were compared. Results: At least 1 major protocol deviation occurred in 51 patients (31%), whereas none was observed in 41. Protocol violations were more frequent in the IMRT group (P <.001). Furthermore, the use of VMAT yielded better dosimetric results than IMRT for urethra planning-risk volume D98% (31.1 vs 30.8 Gy, P <.0001), PTV D2% (37.9 vs 38.7 Gy, P <.0001), homogeneity index (0.09 vs 0.10, P <.0001), Dice similarity coefficient (0.83 vs 0.80, P <.0001), and bladder wall V50% (24.5% vs 33.5%, P =.0001). To achieve its goals volumetric modulated arc therapy required fewer monitor units than IMRT (2275 vs 3378, P <.0001). The inclusion of SV in the PTV negatively affected the rectal wall V90% (9.1% vs 10.4%, P =.0003) and V80% (13.2% vs 15.7%, P =.0003). Conclusions: Protocol deviations with potential impact on tumor control or toxicity occurred in 31% of patients in this prospective clinical trial. Protocol deviations were more frequent with IMRT. Prospective radiation therapy quality assurance protocols should be strongly recommended for SBRT trials to minimize potential protocol deviations