Article

Obesity increases the risk of chest wall pain from thoracic stereotactic body radiation therapy.

Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics (Impact Factor: 4.18). 09/2011; 81(1):91-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.04.022
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly being used to treat thoracic tumors. We attempted here to identify dose-volume parameters that predict chest wall toxicity (pain and skin reactions) in patients receiving thoracic SBRT.
We screened a database of patients treated with SBRT between August 2004 and August 2008 to find patients with pulmonary tumors within 2.5 cm of the chest wall. All patients received a total dose of 50 Gy in four daily 12.5-Gy fractions. Toxicity was scored according to the NCI-CTCAE V3.0.
Of 360 patients in the database, 265 (268 tumors) had tumors within <2.5 cm of the chest wall; 104 (39%) developed skin toxicity (any grade); 14 (5%) developed acute pain (any grade), and 45 (17%) developed chronic pain (Grade 1 in 22 cases [49%] and Grade 2 or 3 in 23 cases [51%]). Both skin toxicity and chest wall pain were associated with the V30, or volume of the chest wall receiving 30 Gy. Body mass index (BMI) was also strongly associated with the development of chest pain: patients with BMI≥29 had almost twice the risk of chronic pain (p=0.03). Among patients with BMI>29, diabetes mellitus was a significant contributing factor to the development of chest pain.
Safe use of SBRT with 50 Gy in four fractions for lesions close to the chest wall requires consideration of the chest wall volume receiving 30 Gy and the patient's BMI and diabetic state.

1 Follower
 · 
116 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) can achieve excellent local control rates in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and has emerged as a standard treatment option for patients who cannot undergo surgery or those with isolated recurrences. However, factors that may predict toxicity or survival are largely unknown. We sought here to identify predictors of survival and pneumonitis after SABR for NSCLC in a relatively large single-institution series. Subjects were 130 patients with stage I NSCLC treated with four-dimensional computed tomography (4D CT) -planned, on-board volumetric image-guided SABR to 50 Gy in 4 fractions. Disease was staged by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and scans were obtained again at the second follow-up after SABR. At a median follow-up time of 26 months, the 2-year local control rate was 98.5%. The median overall survival (OS) time was 60 months, and OS rates were 93.0% at 1 year, 78.2% at 2 years, and 65.3% at 3 years. No patient experienced grade 4-5 toxicity; 15 had radiation pneumonitis (12 [9.3%] grade 2 and 3 [2.3%] grade 3). Performance status, standardized uptake value (SUV)max on staging PET/CT, tumor histology, and disease operability were associated with OS on univariate analysis, but only staging SUVmax was independently predictive on multivariate analysis (P = 0.034). Dosimetric factors were associated with radiation pneumonitis on univariate analysis, but only mean ipsilateral lung dose ≥9.14 Gy was significant on multivariate analysis (P = 0.005). OS and radiation pneumonitis after SABR for stage I NSCLC can be predicted by staging PET SUVmax and ipsilateral mean lung dose, respectively.
    Radiation Oncology 09/2012; 7:152. DOI:10.1186/1748-717X-7-152 · 2.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Chest wall pain and discomfort has been recognized as a significant late effect of radiation therapy in historical and modern treatment models. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) is becoming an important treatment tool in oncology care for patients with intrathoracic lesions. For lesions in close approximation to the chest wall with motion management, SBRT techniques can deliver high dose to the chest wall. As an unintended target of consequence, there is possibility of imposing significant chest wall pain and discomfort as a late effect of therapy. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the potential role of Volume Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) technologies in decreasing chest wall dose in SBRT treatment of pulmonary lesions in close approximation to the chest wall.Materials and Methods: Ten patients with pulmonary lesions of various sizes and tomography in close approximation to the chest wall were selected for retrospective review. All volumes including tumor target, chest wall, ribs, and lung were contoured with maximal intensity projection maps and four-dimensional computer tomography planning. Radiation therapy planning consisted of static techniques including Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy compared to VMAT therapy to a dose of 60 Gy in 12 Gy fraction dose. Dose volume histogram to rib, chest wall, and lung were compared between plans with statistical analysis.Results: In all patients, dose and volume were improved to ribs and chest wall using VMAT technologies compared to static field techniques. On average, volume receiving 30 Gy to the chest wall was improved by 74%; the ribs by 60%. In only one patient did the VMAT treatment technique increase pulmonary volume receiving 20 Gy (V20).Conclusions: VMAT technology has potential of limiting radiation dose to sensitive chest wall regions in patients with lesions in close approximation to this structure. This would also have potential value to lesions treated with SBRT in other body regions where targets abut critical structures.
    Frontiers in Oncology 02/2013; 3:12. DOI:10.3389/fonc.2013.00012
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare toxicity after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for "central" tumors-within 2 cm of the proximal bronchial tree or with planning tumor volume (PTV) touching mediastinum-versus noncentral ("peripheral") lung tumors. From November 2005 to January 2011, 229 tumors (110 central, 119 peripheral; T1-3N0M0 non-small-cell lung cancer and limited lung metastases) in 196 consecutive patients followed prospectively at a single institution received moderate-dose SBRT (48-60 Gy in 4-5 fractions [biologic effective dose=100-132 Gy, α/β=10]) using 4-dimensional planning, online image-guided radiation therapy, and institutional dose constraints. Clinical adverse events (AEs) were graded prospectively at clinical and radiographic follow-up using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Pulmonary function test (PFT) decline was graded as 2 (25%-49.9% decline), 3 (50.0%-74.9% decline), or 4 (≥75.0% decline). Central/peripheral location was assessed retrospectively on planning CT scans. Groups were compared after propensity score matching. Characteristics were compared with χ(2) and 2-tailed t tests, adverse events with χ(2) test-for-trend, and cumulative incidence using competing risks analysis (Gray's test). With 79 central and 79 peripheral tumors matched, no differences in AEs were observed after 17 months median follow-up. Two-year cumulative incidences of grade ≥2 pain, musculoskeletal, pulmonary, and skin AEs were 14%, 5%, 6%, and 10% (central) versus 19%, 10%, 10%, and 3% (peripheral), respectively (P=.31, .38, .70, and .09). Grade ≥2 cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and central nervous system AEs were rare (<1%). Two-year incidences of grade ≥2 clinical AEs (28% vs 25%, P=.79), grade ≥2 PFT decline (36% vs 34%, P=.94), grade ≥3 clinical AEs (3% vs 7%, P=.48), and grade ≥3 PFT decline (0 vs 10%, P=.11) were similar for central versus peripheral tumors, respectively. Pooled 2-year incidences of grades 4 and 5 AEs were <1% and 0%, respectively, in both the prematched and matched groups. Moderate-dose SBRT with these techniques yields a similarly safe toxicity profile for both central and peripheral lung tumors. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 10/2014; 91(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.08.345 · 4.18 Impact Factor