International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025
Dosimetric Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy to Ultracentral Lung Tumors: Lessons From the SUNSET Trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Salunkhe Rohan, Palma David A, Warner Andrew, Bahig Houda, Laba Joanna M, Lang Pencilla, Rodrigues George B, Campeau Marie-Pierre, Faria Sergio, Duclos Marie, Thuc Toni Vu Thi Trinh, Lok Benjamin H, Raman Srinivas, Louie Alexander V, Hope Andrew, Bezjak Andrea, Bratman Scott V, Swaminath Anand, Kundapur Vijayananda, Doucet Robert, Ruo Russel, Keller Brian M, Wierzbicki Marcin, Drever Laura, Gaede Stewart, Bissonnette Jean-Pierre, Giuliani Meredith E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The Stereotactic Radiation Therapy for Ultra-Central Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Safety and Efficacy Trial (SUNSET) trial investigated the maximum tolerated dose for ultracentral lung tumors treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. Here, we report a spatial and dosimetric secondary analysis of the treatment plans and assess relationships between doses to targets, organs at risk (OARs), and clinical outcomes.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five institutions enrolled patients with ultracentral lung cancer, cT1-3N0M0, and all received 60 Gy in 8 fractions. Maximum dose was limited to 120% of prescription. Planning data sets and treatment plans were imported into a central repository. Univariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling were performed to identify significant dosimetric predictors for related grade ≥2 adverse events, overall survival, and local control (LC).
RESULTS: Thirty patients were included in this analysis. At median follow-up of 36.5 months, 11 patients experienced grade ≥2 toxicity. The planning target volume (PTV) overlapped with 58 central OARs of which airway was most common (n = 26). The mean maximum dose was 69.3 Gy (range, 63.8-72.0 Gy); all were within the internal target volume. Mean ± SD PTV D98 was 56.1 ± 7.8 Gy, whereas D0.1 cm3 of proximal bronchial tree, esophagus, and pulmonary artery were 53.1 ± 12.6 Gy, 26.5 ± 10.5 Gy, and 57.0 ± 8.6 Gy, respectively. On regression analysis, the combined overlap volume (cm3) of the 2 primary overlapping OARs with PTV was associated with inferior LC (hazard ratio [HR], 2.86; P = .012); however, it was not associated with increase in grade ≥2 adverse events (odds ratio, 1.17; P = .49). There was no association between OAR doses (D1 cm3 and D0.1 cm3) with toxicity. PTV undercoverage (D98) was not associated with worse LC (HR per 5 Gy, 1.54; P = .68); however, lower PTV coverage was significantly associated with reduced overall survival for D98 (HR, 0.65; P = .014) and D95 (HR per 5 Gy, 0.66; P = .035).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the dose constraints used in the trial, there was no relationship identified between OAR doses and toxicity. LC decreased with increasing overlap of PTV with OARs; however, this was not associated with dosimetric undercoverage of the target.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five institutions enrolled patients with ultracentral lung cancer, cT1-3N0M0, and all received 60 Gy in 8 fractions. Maximum dose was limited to 120% of prescription. Planning data sets and treatment plans were imported into a central repository. Univariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling were performed to identify significant dosimetric predictors for related grade ≥2 adverse events, overall survival, and local control (LC).
RESULTS: Thirty patients were included in this analysis. At median follow-up of 36.5 months, 11 patients experienced grade ≥2 toxicity. The planning target volume (PTV) overlapped with 58 central OARs of which airway was most common (n = 26). The mean maximum dose was 69.3 Gy (range, 63.8-72.0 Gy); all were within the internal target volume. Mean ± SD PTV D98 was 56.1 ± 7.8 Gy, whereas D0.1 cm3 of proximal bronchial tree, esophagus, and pulmonary artery were 53.1 ± 12.6 Gy, 26.5 ± 10.5 Gy, and 57.0 ± 8.6 Gy, respectively. On regression analysis, the combined overlap volume (cm3) of the 2 primary overlapping OARs with PTV was associated with inferior LC (hazard ratio [HR], 2.86; P = .012); however, it was not associated with increase in grade ≥2 adverse events (odds ratio, 1.17; P = .49). There was no association between OAR doses (D1 cm3 and D0.1 cm3) with toxicity. PTV undercoverage (D98) was not associated with worse LC (HR per 5 Gy, 1.54; P = .68); however, lower PTV coverage was significantly associated with reduced overall survival for D98 (HR, 0.65; P = .014) and D95 (HR per 5 Gy, 0.66; P = .035).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the dose constraints used in the trial, there was no relationship identified between OAR doses and toxicity. LC decreased with increasing overlap of PTV with OARs; however, this was not associated with dosimetric undercoverage of the target.