Arno J. Mundt

Intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiotherapy in women with gynecologic malignancies.

PURPOSE To describe our initial clinical experience with intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiotherapy (IM-WPRT) in women with gynecologic malignancies. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between February 2000 and August 2001, 40 gynecology patients underwent IM-WPRT. After fabrication of customized immobilization, all patients underwent contrast-enhanced CT, and a clinical target volume was contoured consisting of the upper vagina, parametria, uterus (if present), and presacral and pelvic lymph node regions. The clinical target volume was expanded by 1 cm to create a planning target volume (PTV). Using commercially available software, 7- or 9-field, 6-MV, coplanar IM-WPRT plans were generated for all patients. The worst acute gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity during treatment was scored on a 4-point scale: 0, none; 1, mild, no medications required; 2, moderate, medications required; and 3, severe, treatment breaks or cessation, hospitalization. As a comparison, acute toxicities in 35 previously treated conventional WPRT patients were analyzed. No significant differences were noted in the clinicopathologic and treatment factors between the two groups. RESULTS IM-WPRT plans provided excellent PTV coverage, with considerable sparing of the surrounding normal tissues. On average, 98.1% of the PTV received the prescription dose. The average percentage of the PTV receiving 110% and 115% of the prescription dose was 9.8% and 0.2%, respectively. IM-WPRT was well tolerated, with no patient developing Grade 3 toxicity. Grade 2 acute gastrointestinal toxicity was less common in the IM-WPRT group (60 vs. 91%, p = 0.002) than in the conventional WPRT group. Moreover, the percentage of IM-WPRT and WPRT patients requiring no or only infrequent antidiarrheal medications was 75% and 34%, respectively (p = 0.001). Although less Grade 2 genitourinary toxicity was seen in the IM-WPRT group (10% vs. 20%), this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.22). CONCLUSION IM-WPRT is a promising approach in gynecology patients. IMRT planning resulted in excellent PTV coverage, with considerable sparing of normal tissues. Treatment was well tolerated and associated with less acute gastrointestinal sequelae than conventional WPRT. Longer follow-up and more patients are needed, however, to evaluate the full merits of this novel approach.

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF CHRONIC GASTROINTESTINAL TOXICITY IN GYNECOLOGY PATIENTS TREATED WITH INTENSITY-MODULATED WHOLE PELVIC RADIATION THERAPY

PURPOSE To provide a preliminary analysis of chronic gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in gynecology patients treated with intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiation therapy (IM-WPRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS Between February 2000 and August 2001, 36 gynecology patients received IM-WPRT. All patients underwent a contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan, and a clinical target volume (CTV) was contoured consisting of the upper vagina, parametria, uterus (if present), and presacral and pelvic lymph node regions. The CTV was expanded by 1 cm to create a planning target volume (PTV). Seven or 9-field IM-WPRT plans were generated. IM-WPRT plans were highly conformal, providing excellent coverage of the PTV and considerable sparing of normal tissues, including the small bowel and rectum. Chronic GI toxicity was scored: 0 (no symptoms), 1 (mild symptoms, no medications required), 2 (moderate symptoms, medications required), and 3 (severe symptoms, hospitalization, surgery required). Chronic GI toxicity in 30 gynecology patients treated with conventional WPRT patients before the implementation of IM-WPRT was also evaluated. Median follow-up in the IM-WPRT and WPRT groups were 19.6 and 30.2 months, respectively. RESULTS The IM-WPRT and WPRT groups were well balanced in terms of most patient and treatment factors, including age, site, stage, chemotherapy, WPRT dose, and brachytherapy, except for a higher frequency of surgery (75 vs. 54%, p = 0.02) in the IM-WPRT group. Overall, IM-WPRT patients had a lower rate of chronic GI toxicity (11.1 vs. 50.0%, p = 0.001) than WPRT patients. The percentage of IM-WPRT patients with Grade 1, 2, and 3 toxicity were 8.3%, 2.8%, and 0%, respectively. Corresponding percentages in the WPRT group were 30.0%, 16.7%, and 3.3%, respectively. The only other factor correlated with chronic GI toxicity was age (p = 0.02). On multivariate (logistic regression) analysis controlling for age and other clinical factors, IM-WPRT retained its statistical significance (p = 0.01; odds ratio 0.16; 95% confidence interval 0.04, 0.67) CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that IM-WPRT is associated with less chronic GI toxicity than conventional WPRT in patients with gynecologic malignancies. However, longer follow-up and more patients are clearly needed to ascertain whether the benefits of IM-WPRT treatment seen here translate into true long-term reductions in chronic GI toxicity.

Concurrent Chemotherapy and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Anal Canal Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Experience

PURPOSE To report a multicenter experience treating anal canal cancer patients with concurrent chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS From October 2000 to June 2006, 53 patients were treated with concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT for anal squamous cell carcinoma at three tertiary-care academic medical centers. Sixty-two percent were T1-2, and 67% were N0; eight patients were HIV positive. Forty-eight patients received fluorouracil (FU)/mitomycin, one received FU/cisplatin, and four received FU alone. All patients underwent computed tomography-based treatment planning with pelvic regions and inguinal nodes receiving a median of 45 Gy. Primary sites and involved nodes were boosted to a median dose of 51.5 Gy. All acute toxicity was scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0. All late toxicity was scored using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria. RESULTS Median follow-up was 14.5 months (range, 5.2 to 102.8 months). Acute grade 3+ toxicity included 15.1% GI and 37.7% dermatologic toxicity; all acute grade 4 toxicities were hematologic; and acute grade 4 leukopenia and neutropenia occurred in 30.2% and 34.0% of patients, respectively. Treatment breaks occurred in 41.5% of patients, lasting a median of 4 days. Forty-nine patients (92.5%) had a complete response, one patient had a partial response, and three had stable disease. All HIV-positive patients achieved a complete response. Eighteen-month colostomy-free survival, overall survival, freedom from local failure, and freedom from distant failure were 83.7%, 93.4%, 83.9%, and 92.9%, respectively. CONCLUSION Preliminary outcomes suggest that concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT for anal canal cancers is effective and tolerated favorably compared with historical standards.

Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on acute hematologic toxicity in women with gynecologic malignancies

PURPOSE To evaluate the impact of intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiotherapy (IM-WPRT) on acute hematologic toxicity (HT) in gynecology patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between February 2000 and June 2001, 36 patients (24 cervix, 12 uterus) received IM-WPRT. The target consisted of the upper vagina, parametria, uterus, and presacral and pelvic lymph nodes. Using commercially available software, seven or nine coplanar IM-WPRT plans were generated. The planning goals were to irradiate the target while minimizing the dose to the small bowel, bladder, and rectum. Pelvic bone marrow (BM) was not a constraint in the planning process. The variables analyzed included white blood count (WBC), absolute neutrophil count (ANC), platelets, and hemoglobin (Hgb) obtained before and weekly during RT. As a comparison, the HT in 88 patients (44 cervix, 44 uterus) treated to the same target volume and total dose (45 Gy) with conventional four-field WPRT was analyzed. In addition, the medullary spaces within the pelvic bones in 10 women were contoured and the average dose-volume histograms representing the pelvic BM were compared between the two groups. RESULTS IM-WPRT patients had a lower median age (p = 0.008), higher percentage of squamous histologic features (p = 0.04), and were more likely to receive chemotherapy (CTX) (p = 0.02) than were the WPRT patients. No differences were seen in the baseline WBC, ANC, platelet, or Hgb levels between the two groups. Grade 2 or greater WBC, ANC, and Hgb toxicity was seen in 19.4%, 9.1%, and 8.6% of the IM-WPRT patients, respectively. Comparable rates were seen in the WPRT patients (WBC 21.6%, p = 0.79; ANC 8.3%, p = 0.91; Hgb 9.2%, p = 0.94). No Grade 2 or greater platelet toxicity was seen in either group. Significant HT was infrequent in women treated with RT alone and was comparable in the two groups. In contrast, WPRT + CTX patients experienced more Grade 2 or greater WBC toxicity (60% vs. 31.2%, p = 0.08) and developed lower median WBC (2.8 vs. 3.6 microg/dL, p = 0.05) and ANC (1874 vs. 2669, p = 0.04) nadirs than did IM-WPRT + CTX patients. Moreover, CTX was held more often in the WPRT group secondary to HT (40% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.06). Although Grade 2 or greater ANC (23.5% vs. 15.3%) and Hgb (35.2% vs. 15.2%) toxicity were lower in the IM-WPRT + CTX group, these differences did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.58 and p = 0.22, respectively). The comparison of pelvic BM dose-volume histograms revealed that IM-WPRT planning resulted in significantly less BM volume being irradiated compared with WPRT planning, particularly within the iliac crests. CONCLUSION IM-WPRT has a favorable impact on the risk of acute HT in gynecology patients, particularly in those receiving CTX. Future work is needed to optimize BM sparing in these patients to reduce the risk of significant HT further.

Consensus Guidelines for Delineation of Clinical Target Volume for Intensity-Modulated Pelvic Radiotherapy for the Definitive Treatment of Cervix Cancer

PURPOSE Accurate target definition is vitally important for definitive treatment of cervix cancer with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), yet a definition of clinical target volume (CTV) remains variable within the literature. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus CTV definition in preparation for a Phase 2 clinical trial being planned by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. METHODS AND MATERIALS A guidelines consensus working group meeting was convened in June 2008 for the purposes of developing target definition guidelines for IMRT for the intact cervix. A draft document of recommendations for CTV definition was created and used to aid in contouring a clinical case. The clinical case was then analyzed for consistency and clarity of target delineation using an expectation maximization algorithm for simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE), with kappa statistics as a measure of agreement between participants. RESULTS Nineteen experts in gynecological radiation oncology generated contours on axial magnetic resonance images of the pelvis. Substantial STAPLE agreement sensitivity and specificity values were seen for gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation (0.84 and 0.96, respectively) with a kappa statistic of 0.68 (p < 0.0001). Agreement for delineation of cervix, uterus, vagina, and parametria was moderate. CONCLUSIONS This report provides guidelines for CTV definition in the definitive cervix cancer setting for the purposes of IMRT, building on previously published guidelines for IMRT in the postoperative setting.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy as a means of reducing dose to bone marrow in gynecologic patients receiving whole pelvic radiotherapy

PURPOSE To evaluate intensity-modulated whole pelvis radiotherapy (IM-WPRT) (with bone marrow [BM] as a planning constraint) as a means to reduce the volume of pelvic BM irradiated. METHODS AND MATERIALS Ten women with cervical or endometrial cancer previously treated using IM-WPRT were selected for this analysis. Using the treatment planning CT scan, the clinical target volume was defined to encompass the gross tumor, parametrial tissues, uterus (if present), and regional lymph nodes. The clinical target volume was expanded by a 1-cm margin to form the planning target volume (PTV). The bladder, rectum, small bowel, and pelvic BM were delineated in each patient. Three plans were created for each patient: a standard four-field WPRT plan, an IM-WPRT treatment plan designed to conform the dose to the PTV while minimizing dose to the normal tissues (excluding BM), and a BM-sparing (BMS) IM-WPRT plan that included the BM as an additional treatment planning constraint. Dose-volume histograms for the PTV, small bowel, and BM were compared for each patient. RESULTS For each of the 10 patients, BMS IM-WPRT treatment plans demonstrated a significant reduction of the volume of BM receiving >40% (18 Gy) of the prescription dose (45 Gy) compared with both IM-WPRT and four-field treatment. On average, BMS IM-WPRT resulted in only 60% of the BM volume irradiated to >50% of the dose compared with 87.4% (p <0.001) of the BM volume in a four-field plan and 75.7% (p < 0.003) of the volume in an IM-WPRT plan. Furthermore, the BMS IM-WPRT plans resulted in significant sparing of all other normal tissues that was comparable to the original IM-WPRT. In all 10 cases, the BMS IM-WPRT treatment plan did not result in any significant differences in the PTV and small bowel dose-volume histograms compared with the IM-WPRT treatment plans. CONCLUSION BMS IM-WPRT significantly reduces the volume of pelvic BM irradiated compared with conventional WPRT. In addition, BMS IM-WPRT did not compromise the improvements previously seen in IM-WPRT treatment plans that did not consider BM. Clinical studies are necessary to assess the significance of BMS IM-WPRT in reducing hematologic toxicity.

Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy use in the U.S., 2004

Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a novel approach to the planning and delivery of radiation therapy. The prevalence of IMRT use among radiation oncologists in the U.S. appears to be increasing, despite limited data evaluating its risks and benefits.

Dosimetric comparison of bone marrow-sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional techniques for treatment of cervical cancer.

PURPOSE To compare bone marrow-sparing intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy (BMS-IMRT) with conventional (four-field box and anteroposterior-posteroanterior [AP-PA]) techniques in the treatment of cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS The data from 7 cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT without BMS were analyzed and compared with data using four-field box and AP-PA techniques. All plans were normalized to cover the planning target volume with the 99% isodose line. The clinical target volume consisted of the pelvic and presacral lymph nodes, uterus and cervix, upper vagina, and parametrial tissue. Normal tissues included bowel, bladder, and pelvic bone marrow (PBM), which comprised the lumbosacral spine and ilium and the ischium, pubis, and proximal femora (lower pelvis bone marrow). Dose-volume histograms for the planning target volume and normal tissues were compared for BMS-IMRT vs. four-field box and AP-PA plans. RESULTS BMS-IMRT was superior to the four-field box technique in reducing the dose to the PBM, small bowel, rectum, and bladder. Compared with AP-PA plans, BMS-IMRT reduced the PBM volume receiving a dose >16.4 Gy. BMS-IMRT reduced the volume of ilium, lower pelvis bone marrow, and bowel receiving a dose >27.7, >18.7, and >21.1 Gy, respectively, but increased dose below these thresholds compared with the AP-PA plans. BMS-IMRT reduced the volume of lumbosacral spine bone marrow, rectum, small bowel, and bladder at all dose levels in all 7 patients. CONCLUSION BMS-IMRT reduced irradiation of PBM compared with the four-field box technique. Compared with the AP-PA technique, BMS-IMRT reduced lumbosacral spine bone marrow irradiation and reduced the volume of PBM irradiated to high doses. Therefore BMS-IMRT might reduce acute hematologic toxicity compared with conventional techniques.

Conservative surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy in the management of adult soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities: Clinical and radiobiological results

PURPOSE The outcome of adult patients with soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities treated with conservative surgery and adjuvant irradiation was evaluated to (a) determine the appropriate treatment volume and radiation dosage in the postoperative setting, and (b) correlate in vitro radiobiological parameters obtained prior to therapy with clinical outcome. METHODS AND MATERIALS Sixty-four consecutive adult patients with soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities (40 lower, 24 upper) who underwent conservative surgery and adjuvant irradiation 7 preoperative, 50 postoperative, 7 perioperative) between 1978 and 1991 were reviewed. The initial radiation field margin surrounding the tumor bed/scar was retrospectively analyzed in all postoperative patients. Initial field margins were < 5 cm in 12 patients, 5-9.9 cm in 32 and > or = 10 cm in 6. Patients with negative pathological margins were initially treated with traditional postoperative doses (64-66 Gy); however, in later years the postoperative dose was reduced to 60 Gy. Thirteen cell lines were established prior to definite therapy, and radiobiological parameters (multitarget and linear-quadratic) were obtained and correlated with outcome. RESULTS Postoperative patients treated with an initial field margin of < 5 cm had a 5-year local control of 30.4% vs. 93.2% in patients treated with an initial margin of > or = 5 cm (p = 0.0003). Five-year local control rates were similar in patients treated with initial field margins of 5-9.9 cm (91.6%) compared with those treated with > or = 10 cm margins (100%) (p = 0.49). While postoperative patients receiving < 60 Gy had a worse local control than those receiving > or = 60 Gy (p = 0.08), no difference was seen in local control between patients receiving less than traditional postoperative doses (60-63.9 Gy) (74.4% vs. those receiving 64-66 Gy (87.0%) (p = 0.5). The local control of patients treated in the later years of the study, with strict attention to surgical and radiotherapeutic technique, was 87.6%. Severe late sequelae were more frequent in patients treated with doses > or = 63 Gy compared to patients treated with lower doses (23.1% vs. 0%) (p < 0.05). Mean values for Do, alpha, beta, D, n and SF2 obtained from the 13 cell lines were 115.7, 0.66, 0.029, 2.15, 0.262, respectively. Four of the 13 cell lines established prior to therapy ultimately failed locally. The radiobiological parameters of these cell lines were similar to the other nine cell lines in terms of radiosensitivity. CONCLUSIONS Our data confirm the importance of maintaining an initial field margin of at least 5 cm around the tumor bed/scar in the postoperative setting. No benefit was seen with the use of margins > or = 10 cm. In addition, patients undergoing wide local excision with negative margins can be treated with lower than traditional postoperative doses (60 Gy) without compromising local control and with fewer chronic sequelae. Finally, it does not appear that inherent tumor cell sensitivity is a major determinant of local failure following radiation therapy and conservative surgery in soft tissue sarcoma.

A Method for Evaluating Quality Assurance Needs in Radiation Therapy

The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery techniques challenges traditional prescriptive quality control and quality assurance programs that ensure safety and reliability of treatment planning and delivery systems under all clinical scenarios. Until now quality management (QM) guidelines published by concerned organizations (e.g., American Association of Physicists in Medicine [AAPM], European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology [ESTRO], International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]) have focused on monitoring functional performance of radiotherapy equipment by measurable parameters, with tolerances set at strict but achievable values. In the modern environment, however, the number and sophistication of possible tests and measurements have increased dramatically. There is a need to prioritize QM activities in a way that will strike a balance between being reasonably achievable and optimally beneficial to patients. A systematic understanding of possible errors over the course of a radiation therapy treatment and the potential clinical impact of each is needed to direct limited resources in such a way to produce maximal benefit to the quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and is developing a framework for designing QM activities, and hence allocating resources, based on estimates of clinical outcome, risk assessment, and failure modes. The report will provide guidelines on risk assessment approaches with emphasis on failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) and an achievable QM program based on risk analysis. Examples of FMEA to intensity-modulated radiation therapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy are presented. Recommendations on how to apply this new approach to individual clinics and further research and development will also be discussed.