Search

Aims With interest in normal tissue sparing and dose-escalated radiotherapy in the treatment of inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, this study investigated the impact of motion-managed moderate deep inspiration breath hold (mDIBH) on normal tissue sparing and dose-escalation potential and compared this to planning with a four-dimensional motion-encompassing internal target volume or motion-compensating mid-ventilation approach. Materials and methods Twenty-one patients underwent four-dimensional and mDIBH planning computed tomography scans. Internal and mid-ventilation target volumes were generated on the four-dimensional scan, with mDIBH target volumes generated on the mDIBH scan. Isotoxic target dose-escalation guidelines were used to generate six plans per patient: three with a target dose cap and three without. Target dose-escalation potential, normal tissue complication probability and differences in pre-specified dose-volume metrics were evaluated for the three motion-management techniques. Results The mean total lung volume was significantly greater with mDIBH compared with four-dimensional scans. Lung dose (mean and V21 Gy) and mean heart dose were significantly reduced with mDIBH in comparison with four-dimensional-based approaches, and this translated to a significant reduction in heart and lung normal tissue complication probability with mDIBH. In 20/21 patients, the trial target prescription dose cap of 79.2 Gy was achievable with all motion-management techniques. Conclusion mDIBH aids lung and heart dose sparing in isotoxic dose-escalated radiotherapy compared with four-dimensional planning techniques. Given concerns about lung and cardiac toxicity, particularly in an era of consolidation immunotherapy, reduced normal tissue doses may be advantageous for treatment tolerance and outcome.

Aims: To retrospectively review the toxicity and early outcome data from patients who have received stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for extracranial oligometastases at a single UK institution. Materials and methods: Eligible patients had ≤3 extracranial metastases and performance status ≤2. Prior systemic therapy and radical treatment of oligometastastic relapse with any standard treatment modality was permitted. Patients with synchronous metastatic disease were excluded unless they had evidence of controlled primary disease after radical therapy. Follow-up consisted of clinical examination, biochemical and radiological assessments in accordance with standard clinical care. Progression events were defined using RECIST. Toxicity was evaluated using CTCAE v4.0. Local control, progression-free survival (PFS), freedom from widespread distant metastasis (defined as disease not amenable to further radical salvage therapy) and overall survival were calculated. Results: Between July 2011 and April 2014, 73 patients with 87 metastases received SBRT (range 1-3 per patient). The median follow-up was 14.5 months (range 0-26.4). The median PFS was 14.5 months (1 year PFS 57%, 2 year 28%); 1 year overall survival 96%, 2 year 79.8%; 2 year local control 88%. At 2 years, 46% of patients were free from widespread distant metastases. No≥grade 3 acute or late toxicity was observed. Conclusion: At this time point, observed toxicity is minimal with excellent local control rates. This promising treatment paradigm requires further investigation in the context of a randomised controlled trial to establish if the addition of SBRT to standard care improves survival outcomes.