Person:

Hacker, Fred

Purpose To examine the frequency and potential of dose-volume predictors for chest wall (CW) toxicity (pain and/or rib fracture) for patients receiving lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using treatment planning methods to minimize CW dose and a risk-adapted fractionation scheme. Methods: We reviewed data from 72 treatment plans, from 69 lung SBRT patients with at least one year of follow-up or CW toxicity, who were treated at our center between 2010 and 2013. Treatment plans were optimized to reduce CW dose and patients received a risk-adapted fractionation of 18 Gy×3 fractions (54 Gy total) if the CW V30 was less than 30 mL or 10–12 Gy×5 fractions (50–60 Gy total) otherwise. The association between CW toxicity and patient characteristics, treatment parameters and dose metrics, including biologically equivalent dose, were analyzed using logistic regression. Results: With a median follow-up of 20 months, 6 (8.3%) patients developed CW pain including three (4.2%) grade 1, two (2.8%) grade 2 and one (1.4%) grade 3. Five (6.9%) patients developed rib fractures, one of which was symptomatic. No significant associations between CW toxicity and patient and dosimetric variables were identified on univariate nor multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Optimization of treatment plans to reduce CW dose and a risk-adapted fractionation strategy of three or five fractions based on the CW V30 resulted in a low incidence of CW toxicity. Under these conditions, none of the patient characteristics or dose metrics we examined appeared to be predictive of CW pain.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed outcomes after lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for early-stage non-small cell lung-carcinoma (NSCLC) by histology and KRAS genotype. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 75 patients with 79 peripheral tumors treated with SBRT (18 Gy × 3 or 10 to 12 Gy × 5) at our institution from 2009 to 2012. Genotyping for KRAS mutations was performed in 10 patients. Outcomes were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method/Cox regression, or cumulative incidence method/Fine-Gray analysis. RESULTS: The median patient age was 74 (range, 46 to 93) years, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 to 1 in 63%. Tumor histology included adenocarcinoma (44%), squamous cell carcinoma (25%), and NSCLC (18%). Most tumors were T1a (54%). Seven patients had KRAS-mutant tumors (9%). With a median follow-up of 18.8 months among survivors, the 1-year estimate of overall survival was 88%, cancer-specific survival (CSS) 92%, primary tumor control 94%, and freedom from recurrence (FFR) 67%. In patients with KRAS-mutant tumors, there was a significantly lower tumor control (67% vs. 96%; P = .04), FFR (48% vs. 69%; P = .03), and CSS (75% vs. 93%; P = .05). On multivariable analysis, histology was not associated with outcomes, but KRAS mutation (hazard ratio, 10.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-45.6; P = .0022) was associated with decreased CSS after adjusting for age. CONCLUSION: In this SBRT series, histology was not associated with outcomes, but KRAS mutation was associated with lower FFR on univariable analysis and decreased CSS on multivariable analysis. Because of the small sample size, these hypothesis-generating results need to be studied in larger data sets.

The analysis of dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) positions for the delivered intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans is crucial in that it may capture dose delivery problems otherwise difficult to observe and quantify in the conventional dosimetric measurements with film or with an ionization chamber. In some IMRT systems, delivery of IMRT fields starts with a maximum MLC opening (roughly the shape of the target in the beam's‐eye view) and then proceeds to the subsequent dynamic MLC subfields. No irradiation is required in going from the initial segment (maximum opening) to the next one, and theoretically, no dose should be delivered in that initial moment. However, due to a finite sampling time of the MLC controller, the finite speed of the MLC, and a finite leaf tolerance, there may be some dose delivered between the first and the second segment. The amount of the excess dose is higher for larger dose rates and for a smaller number of the total monitor units per IMRT field. The magnitude of the dose errors could be in the order of a few percent. Effects similar to the maximum MLC opening may occur in other situations as well, for instance, when leaves are forced to move over large distances in a short time. Confounding this are dose errors due to the uncertainty in the MLC transmission. The analysis of the actual leaf positions recorded in the dynamic MLC log file is helpful in differentiating between the two types of errors and in determining the optimal dynamic MLC delivery parameters. PACS numbers: 87.53.‐j, 87.90.+y