Search

Background and purpose: For locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) can reduce organ at risk (OAR) doses compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) reduces OAR doses compared to free breathing (FB) in IMRT. In IMPT, differences in dose distributions and robustness between DIBH and FB are unclear. In this study, we compare DIBH to FB in IMPT, and IMPT to IMRT. Materials and methods: Fortyone LA-NSCLC patients were prospectively included. 4D computed tomography images (4DCTs) and DIBH CTs were acquired for treatment planning and during weeks 1 and 3 of treatment. A new system for automated robust planning was developed and used to generate a FB and a DIBH IMPT plan for each patient. Plans were compared in terms of dose-volume parameters and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs). Dose recalculations on repeat CTs were used to compare inter-fraction plan robustness. Results: In IMPT, DIBH reduced median lungs Dmean from 9.3 Gy(RBE) to 8.0 Gy(RBE) compared to FB, and radiation pneumonitis NTCP from 10.9 % to 9.4 % (p

Background: State-of-the-art radiotherapy of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) is performed with intensity-modulation during free breathing (FB). Previous studies have found encouraging geometric reproducibility and patient compliance of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) radiotherapy for LA-NSCLC patients. However, dosimetric comparisons of DIBH with FB are sparse, and DIBH is not routinely used for this patient group. The objective of this simulation study was therefore to compare DIBH and FB in a prospective cohort of LA-NSCLC patients treated with intensitymodulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Methods: For 38 LA-NSCLC patients, 4DCTs and DIBH CTs were acquired for treatment planning and during the first and third week of radiotherapy treatment. Using automated planning, one FB and one DIBH IMRT plan were generated for each patient. FB and DIBH was compared in terms of dosimetric parameters and NTCP. The treatment plans were recalculated on the repeat CTs to evaluate robustness. Correlations between DNTCPs and patient characteristics that could potentially predict the benefit of DIBH were explored. Results: DIBH reduced the median Dmean to the lungs and heart by 1.4 Gy and 1.1 Gy, respectively. This translated into reductions in NTCP for radiation pneumonitis grade ≥2 from 20.3% to 18.3%, and for 2-year mortality from 51.4% to 50.3%. The organ at risk sparing with DIBH remained significant in week 1 and week 3 of treatment, and the robustness of the target coverage was similar for FB and DIBH. While the risk of radiation pneumonitis was consistently reduced with DIBH regardless of patient characteristics, the ability to reduce the risk of 2-year mortality was evident among patients with upper and left lower lobe tumors but not right lower lobe tumors. Conclusion: Compared to FB, DIBH allowed for smaller target volumes and similar target coverage. DIBH reduced the lung and heart dose, as well as the risk of radiation pneumonitis and 2-year mortality, for 92% and 74% of LANSCLC patients, respectively. However, the advantages varied considerably between patients, and the ability to reduce the risk of 2-year mortality was dependent on tumor location. Evaluation of repeat CTs showed similar robustness of the dose distributions with each technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundState-of-the-art radiotherapy of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) is performed with intensity-modulation during free breathing (FB). Previous studies have found encouraging geometric reproducibility and patient compliance of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) radiotherapy for LA-NSCLC patients. However, dosimetric comparisons of DIBH with FB are sparse, and DIBH is not routinely used for this patient group. The objective of this simulation study was therefore to compare DIBH and FB in a prospective cohort of LA-NSCLC patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).MethodsFor 38 LA-NSCLC patients, 4DCTs and DIBH CTs were acquired for treatment planning and during the first and third week of radiotherapy treatment. Using automated planning, one FB and one DIBH IMRT plan were generated for each patient. FB and DIBH was compared in terms of dosimetric parameters and NTCP. The treatment plans were recalculated on the repeat CTs to evaluate robustness. Correlations between ΔNTCPs and patient characteristics that could potentially predict the benefit of DIBH were explored.ResultsDIBH reduced the median Dmean to the lungs and heart by 1.4 Gy and 1.1 Gy, respectively. This translated into reductions in NTCP for radiation pneumonitis grade ≥2 from 20.3% to 18.3%, and for 2-year mortality from 51.4% to 50.3%. The organ at risk sparing with DIBH remained significant in week 1 and week 3 of treatment, and the robustness of the target coverage was similar for FB and DIBH. While the risk of radiation pneumonitis was consistently reduced with DIBH regardless of patient characteristics, the ability to reduce the risk of 2-year mortality was evident among patients with upper and left lower lobe tumors but not right lower lobe tumors.ConclusionCompared to FB, DIBH allowed for smaller target volumes and similar target coverage. DIBH reduced the lung and heart dose, as well as the risk of radiation pneumonitis and 2-year mortality, for 92% and 74% of LA-NSCLC patients, respectively. However, the advantages varied considerably between patients, and the ability to reduce the risk of 2-year mortality was dependent on tumor location. Evaluation of repeat CTs showed similar robustness of the dose distributions with each technique.

Background and Purpose: For locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) can reduce organ at risk (OAR) doses compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) reduces OAR doses compared to free breathing (FB) in IMRT. In IMPT, differences in dose distributions and robustness between DIBH and FB are unclear. In this study, we compare DIBH to FB in IMPT, and IMPT to IMRT., Materials and Methods: Fortyone LA-NSCLC patients were prospectively included. 4D computed tomography images (4DCTs) and DIBH CTs were acquired for treatment planning and during weeks 1 and 3 of treatment. A new system for automated robust planning was developed and used to generate a FB and a DIBH IMPT plan for each patient. Plans were compared in terms of dose-volume parameters and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs). Dose recalculations on repeat CTs were used to compare inter-fraction plan robustness., Results: In IMPT, DIBH reduced median lungs D mean from 9.3 Gy(RBE) to 8.0 Gy(RBE) compared to FB, and radiation pneumonitis NTCP from 10.9 % to 9.4 % ( p  < 0.001). Inter-fraction plan robustness for DIBH and FB was similar. Median NTCPs for radiation pneumonitis and mortality were around 9 percentage points lower with IMPT than IMRT ( p  < 0.001). These differences were much larger than between FB and DIBH within each modality., Conclusion: DIBH IMPT resulted in reduced lung dose and radiation pneumonitis NTCP compared to FB IMPT. Inter-fraction robustness was comparable. OAR doses were far lower in IMPT than IMRT., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: BJMH, SB: Erasmus MC Cancer Institute has research collaborations with Elekta AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Accuray, Inc (Sunnyvale, USA) and Varian Medical Systems, Inc (Palo Alto, USA). The other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results., (© 2024 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society of Radiotherapy & Oncology.)