Bainbridge H, Dunlop A, McQuaid D, Gulliford S, Gunapala R, Ahmed M, Locke I, Nill S, Oelfke U, McDonald F. A Comparison of Isotoxic Dose-escalated Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer with Moderate Deep Inspiration Breath Hold, Mid-ventilation and Internal Target Volume Techniques.
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2022;
34:151-159. [PMID:
34503896 DOI:
10.1016/j.clon.2021.08.012]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2021] [Revised: 07/31/2021] [Accepted: 08/23/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
AIMS
With interest in normal tissue sparing and dose-escalated radiotherapy in the treatment of inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, this study investigated the impact of motion-managed moderate deep inspiration breath hold (mDIBH) on normal tissue sparing and dose-escalation potential and compared this to planning with a four-dimensional motion-encompassing internal target volume or motion-compensating mid-ventilation approach.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Twenty-one patients underwent four-dimensional and mDIBH planning computed tomography scans. Internal and mid-ventilation target volumes were generated on the four-dimensional scan, with mDIBH target volumes generated on the mDIBH scan. Isotoxic target dose-escalation guidelines were used to generate six plans per patient: three with a target dose cap and three without. Target dose-escalation potential, normal tissue complication probability and differences in pre-specified dose-volume metrics were evaluated for the three motion-management techniques.
RESULTS
The mean total lung volume was significantly greater with mDIBH compared with four-dimensional scans. Lung dose (mean and V21 Gy) and mean heart dose were significantly reduced with mDIBH in comparison with four-dimensional-based approaches, and this translated to a significant reduction in heart and lung normal tissue complication probability with mDIBH. In 20/21 patients, the trial target prescription dose cap of 79.2 Gy was achievable with all motion-management techniques.
CONCLUSION
mDIBH aids lung and heart dose sparing in isotoxic dose-escalated radiotherapy compared with four-dimensional planning techniques. Given concerns about lung and cardiac toxicity, particularly in an era of consolidation immunotherapy, reduced normal tissue doses may be advantageous for treatment tolerance and outcome.
Collapse