Could Poor Outcomes for Patients with Limited Lung Function Treated with SAbR Necessitate PULSAR?

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) employs precise targeting and delivery of ablative radiation doses in patients with medically inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer, as well as patients with pulmonary metastases. SAbR is well tolerated with few studies reporting a minimal decline in pulmonary function tests (PFTs). However, poor pulmonary function is considered a risk factor for radiation induced lung toxicity. Personalized Ultrafractionated Stereotactic Adaptive Radiotherapy (PULSAR) is an adaptive radiation therapy regimen where radiation pulses are delivered over longer periods of time, thereby allowing for modification of the treatment based on the patient's response, as well as limiting toxicities. As such, we hypothesize that treating patients with poor pulmonary function using a PULSAR approach is better tolerated in when compared to patients treated with SAbR.

MATERIALS/METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of our institutional database of patients treated with SAbR to lung lesions from 2005 to 2022. We assessed the overall survival in stage-matched patients with normal vs poor lung function who received SAbR (40 patients in each cohort). Patients with decreased lung function included those with a diagnosis of moderate/severe COPD, restrictive lung disease, or patients needing home oxygen at the time of treatment. We then analyzed PFTs changes for patients receiving SAbR, and evaluated these changes relative to treatment delivery.

RESULTS

Stage-matched Kaplan-Meier analysis of patients with normal vs poor lung function receiving SAbR revealed a statistically significant difference in survival with Log-rank test p = 0.007. Of the patients with PFTs, 45 (90%) received SAbR with two to three treatments weekly, while 5 (10%) were treated on a PULSAR regimen with one fraction every week to three weeks. No trends or significant differences are observed in the changes of total lung capacity (TLC), the first second of exhalation (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) or FEV1/FVC ratios. However, we did note variations in the diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO). The mean difference in DLCO for the SAbR and PULSAR groups were -26.07% (95% CI: -31.28 to -20.87, p < 0.0001), and -10.52% (95% CI: -40.74 to 19.69, p = 0.388), respectively.

CONCLUSION

We observed a significant difference in overall survival between patients with normal vs poor lung function receiving SAbR. In a preliminary analysis, we discovered a small decline in DLCO for patients treated with regularly scheduled SAbR treatments. In the patients treated on the PULSAR regimen, however, this change in DLCO is not statistically significant. While this data suggests that increasing the time frame between individual doses of radiation may result in better toleration of radiotherapy in this patient population, the sample size of patients treated via PULSAR is limited, and longer follow-up is needed to further evaluate the potential benefits.

Tracking Changes in Global Longitudinal Strain in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Thoracic Radiation

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Thoracic radiation improves survival in many lung cancer patients. However, radiation-induced cardiotoxicity is a major source of morbidity and mortality in such patients. Global longitudinal strain (GLS), a novel echocardiography (ECHO) method of assessing left ventricular function, has been shown to predict long-term adverse cardiovascular risk in diverse patient populations. We hypothesized that receipt of thoracic radiation is associated with GLS changes in lung cancer patients.

MATERIALS/METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients with lung cancer treated at our institution between 2005-2020 who had ECHOs performed both before and after RT, and in whom GLS was extractable. ECHO Board-Certified cardio-oncologists measured GLS and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from these ECHOs.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients met inclusion criteria. Median time to ECHO was 78 days prior and 172 days after RT. Two chamber (2C), 3C, 4C, and average GLS were significantly decreased after RT on paired t-test [mean difference (SD) 2.23 (3.29), 2.99 (2.78), 2.25 (3.63), 2.51 (2.66) respectively, all p < 0.001]. Thirteen patients (32.5%) had abnormal GLS (<18%) prior to RT. 5 of those 13 patients (38.5%) had abnormal LVEF (< 50%). 27/40 patients (67.5%) had an abnormal GLS or clinically significant (≥15%) drop in GLS after RT. This difference (32.5% patients pre-RT vs 67.5% post-RT) was statistically significant (p < 0.01). Among patients (n = 27) who had normal LVEF before RT, 1 patient (3.7%) developed abnormal LVEF (<50%) after RT. Backwards logistic regression showed significant interaction between heart volume receiving 5 Gray and change in GLS.

CONCLUSION

This cohort exhibited a significant decrease in 2C, 3C, 4C, and average GLS after RT. ∼1/3 of patients had abnormal GLS at baseline (suggesting a high-risk group for cardiac complications) and 67.5% of patients had clinically significant decrease in GLS after RT. Among the patients with normal GLS before RT, although 51.9% of patients demonstrated a clinically significant drop in GLS after RT, only 3.7% of patients developed abnormal LVEF, suggesting that this is a late occurrence. GLS changes may serve as a valuable tool for early identification of patients who are at high risk for future cardiac complications after receiving thoracic radiation.