skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Adaptive/Nonadaptive Proton Radiation Planning and Outcomes in a Phase II Trial for Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Journal Article · · International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics
;  [1];  [2]; ;  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (United States)
  2. Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (United States)

Purpose: To analyze dosimetric variables and outcomes after adaptive replanning of radiation therapy during concurrent high-dose protons and chemotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods and Materials: Nine of 44 patients with stage III NSCLC in a prospective phase II trial of concurrent paclitaxel/carboplatin with proton radiation [74 Gy(RBE) in 37 fractions] had modifications to their original treatment plans after re-evaluation revealed changes that would compromise coverage of the target volume or violate dose constraints; plans for the other 35 patients were not changed. We compared patients with adaptive plans with those with nonadaptive plans in terms of dosimetry and outcomes. Results: At a median follow-up of 21.2 months (median overall survival, 29.6 months), no differences were found in local, regional, or distant failure or overall survival between groups. Adaptive planning was used more often for large tumors that shrank to a greater extent (median, 107.1 cm{sup 3} adaptive and 86.4 cm{sup 3} nonadaptive; median changes in volume, 25.3% adaptive and 1.2% nonadaptive; P<.01). The median number of fractions delivered using adaptive planning was 13 (range, 4-22). Adaptive planning generally improved sparing of the esophagus (median absolute decrease in V{sub 70}, 1.8%; range, 0%-22.9%) and spinal cord (median absolute change in maximum dose, 3.7 Gy; range, 0-13.8 Gy). Without adaptive replanning, target coverage would have been compromised in 2 cases (57% and 82% coverage without adaptation vs 100% for both with adaptation); neither patient experienced local failure. Radiation-related grade 3 toxicity rates were similar between groups. Conclusions: Adaptive planning can reduce normal tissue doses and prevent target misses, particularly for patients with large tumors that shrink substantially during therapy. Adaptive plans seem to have acceptable toxicity and achieve similar local, regional, and distant control and overall survival, even in patients with larger tumors, vs nonadaptive plans.

OSTI ID:
22149662
Journal Information:
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 84, Issue 5; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2012 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0360-3016
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English