The advantage of 3D conformal treatment of lumbar spine metastases in comparison to traditional PA or AP-PA techniques: restoring an intermediate niche of therapeutic sophistication

Radiation Oncology

Haim Tempelhof¹  Dan Schifter¹  Natan Shtraus¹  Benjamin W Corn¹  Viacheslav Soyfer¹ 

[1] Radiation Oncology Department, Tel Aviv Souraskiy Medical Center, affiliated with Tel Aviv University School of Medicine, 6 Weizmann St., Tel Aviv, 64239, Israel

关键词: 3D;    IMRT;    Radiation;    Metastases;    Spine;   

Others  :  1154589
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-717X-8-34

 received in 2012-05-13, accepted in 2013-02-06,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

To evaluate the effect of the 3D radiation field design on normal tissues compared with commonly used appositional fields in patients with lumbar spine metastases.

Methods and materials

Ten comparative treatment plans for radiation of lumbar spine metastases were compared for posterior and anterior- posterior fields with 3D plans.

Results

The PTV coverage in all comparative plans was similar. V 15 of the bowel in 3D, AP-PA and PA plans was 6.7 Gy (SD 6.47), 39.8 Gy (SD 11.4) and 37.3 Gy (SD15.7), respectively (p < 0.0001). The mean dose to both kidneys was 9.6 Gy (SD 4.8), 4.1 Gy (SD 3.9) and 4.6 Gy (SD 4.4) for appropriate plans (p = 0.002). Maximal dose to the spinal cord was 30.6 Gy (SD 2.1), 33.1 Gy (SD 9.8) and 37.7 Gy (SD 2) for 3D, AP-PA and PA plans.

Conclusion

3D conformal treatment planning of lumbar vertebral metastases was significantly better in term of bowel and spinal cord exposure compared to AP-PA and PA techniques. The exposure of the kidneys in 3D plans, while greater than in the comparative plans, did not violate accepted dose-volume thresholds.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Soyfer et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Perez CA, Brady LW, Roti Roti JL, et al.: Overview. In Principles and practice of radiation oncology. 3rd edition. Edited by Perez CA, Brady LW. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven; 1997.
• [2]Wong DA, Fornasier VL, MacNab I: Spinal metastases: the obvious, the occult, and the impostors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990, 15:1-4.
• [3]Chow E, Harris K, Fan G, et al.: Palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases: A systematic review. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:1423-1436.
• [4]Fairchild A, Barnes E, Ghosh S, et al.: International patterns of practice in palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: Evidence-based practice? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:1281-1628.
• [5]Wu J, Wong R, Lloyd N, et al.: Radiotherapy fractionation for the palliation of uncomplicated painful bone metastases—An evidence-based practice guideline. BMC Cancer 2004, 4:71-78. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Lutz S, Berk L, Chang E, Chow E, et al.: Palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: an ASTRO evidence-based guideline. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011, 79(4):965-976. Mar 15
• [7]Corn WB, Glatstein E: The most important question. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 74(4):985-986.
• [8]Andic F, Baz Cifci S, Ors Y, Niang U, Dirier A, Adli M: A dosimetric comparison of different treatment plans of palliative spinal bone irradiation: analysis of dose coverage with respect to ICRU 50 Report. J Exp Clin Cancer 2009, 28:2. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Hochberg GT2 test. http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/the-sage-dictionary-of-statistics/n248.xml webcite
• [10]Schmidt MH, Klimo PJ, Vrionis FD: Metastatic spinal cord compression. J Nati Compr Canc Netw 2005, 3(5):711-719.
• [11]Coleman RE: Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity. Clin Cancer Res 2006, 12:6243.
• [12]Gaze MN, Kelly CG, Kerr GR, et al.: Pain relief and quality of life following radiotherapy for bone metastases: A randomized trial of two fractionation schedules. Radiother Oncol 1997, 45:109-116.
• [13]Halperin E, Perez C, Brady WL: Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology. Fifth edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wiklins; 2008:p 773.
• [14]Sahgal A, Larson D, Chang EL: Stereotactic body radiosurgery for spinal metastases: A critical review. IJORBP 2008, 71:652-665.
• [15]Baglan K, Frazier R, Yan D, et al.: The dose-volume relationship of acute small bowel toxicity from concurrent 5-FU- based chemotherapy and radiation therapy for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 52(1):176-183.
• [16]Trotti A, Byhardt R, Stetz J, et al.: Common toxicity criteria: version 2.0. An improved reference for grading the acute effects of cancer treatment (Impact on radiotherapy). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000, 47:13-47.
• [17]Gunnlaugsson A, Kjellén E, Nilsson P, et al.: Dose-volume relationships between enteritis and irradiated bowel volumes during 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin based chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Acta Oncol 2007, 46:937-944.
• [18]Kavanagh B, Pan C, Dawson L, et al.: Radiation dose-volume effects in the stomach and small bowel. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 76(3):101-107.
• [19]Dawson L, Kavanagh B, Paulino A, et al.: Radiation-associated kidney injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 76:108-115.
• [20]Randomized trial of palliative radiation therapy for osseous metastases: a study of palliation of symptoms and quality of life for osseous metastases: a study of palliation of symptoms and quality of life (RTOG 9714). http://www.rtog.org/ClinicalTrials/ProtocolTable/StudyDetails.aspx?study=9714 webcite
• [21]Hartsell WF, Desilvio M, Bruner DW, et al.: Can physicians accurately predict survival time in patients with metastatic cancer? Analysis of RTOG 97–14. J Palliat Med 2008, 11(5):723-728.
• [22]Radiation therapy oncology group rtog0631. Phase ii/iii study of image-guided radiosurgery/sbrt for localized spine metastasis. http://www.rtog.org/ClinicalTrials/ProtocolTable/StudyDetails.aspx?study=0631 webcite
• [23]Chow E, Hoskin P, Mitera G, et al.: Update of the international consensus on palliative radiotherapy endpoints for future clinical trials in bone metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012, 82(5):1730-1737.