Schild, Steven E.

Abstract Background Previous survival scores for breast cancer patients with cerebral metastases were developed in cohorts receiving heterogeneous treatments, which could have introduced selection biases. A new instrument (WBRT-30-BC) was created from 170 patients receiving whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) alone with 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Methods Characteristics showing significant associations (p < 0.05) with overall survival (OS) or a trend (p < 0.08) on multivariate analysis were used for the WBRT-30-BC. For each characteristic, 6-month OS rates were divided by 10. These scoring points were added for each patient (patient scores). The WBRT-30-BC was compared to the diagnosis- specific graded prognostic assessment (DS-GPA) classification and Rades-Score for breast cancer regarding positive predictive values (PPVs) to identify patients dying within 6 months and patients surviving at least 6 months following WBRT. Results On multivariate analysis, Karnofsky performance score (KPS) was significant (risk ratio [RR]: 2.45, p < 0.001). In addition, extra-cerebral metastatic disease (RR: 1.52, p = 0.071) and time between breast cancer diagnosis and WBRT (RR: 1.37, p = 0.070) showed a trend. Based on these three characteristics, four predictive groups were designed: 7–9, 10–12, 13–15 and 16 points. Six-month OS rates were 8%, 41%, 68% and 100% (p < 0.001). PPVs to identify patients dying within 6 months were 92% (WBRT-30-BC), 84% (DS-GPA) and 92% (Rades-Score). PPVs to identify patients surviving for at least 6 months were 100% (WBRT-30-BC), 74% (DS-GPA) and 68% (Rades-Score). Conclusions The WBRT-30-BC appeared very accurate in predicting death ≤ 6 months and survival ≥ 6 months of breast cancer patients receiving WBRT. It was superior to previous instruments in predicting survival ≥ 6 months.

Diagnosis-specific survival scores including a new score developed in 157 patients with brain metastases from small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) receiving whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with 30 Gy in 10 fractions (WBRT-30-SCLC) were compared. Three prognostic groups were designed based on the 6-month survival probabilities of significant or almost significant factors, (age, performance score, number of brain metastases, extra-cerebral metastasis). Six-month survival rates were 6% (6–11 points), 44% (12–14 points) and 86% (16–19 points). The WBRT-30-SCLC was compared to three disease-specific scores for brain metastasis from SCLC, the original and updated diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment DS-GPA classifications and the Rades-SCLC. Positive predictive values (PPVs) used to correctly predict death ≤6 months were 94% (WBRT-30-SCLC), 88% (original DS-GPA), 88% (updated DS-GPA) and 100% (Rades-SCLC). PPVs to predict survival ≥6 months were 86%, 75%, 76% and 100%. For WBRT-30-SCLC and Rades-SCLC, differences between poor and intermediate prognoses groups and between intermediate and favorable prognoses groups were significant. For both DS-GPA classifications, only the difference between poor and intermediate prognoses groups was significant. Of these disease-specific tools, Rades-SCLC appeared to be the most accurate in identifying patients dying ≤6 months and patients surviving ≥6 months after irradiation, followed by the new WBRT-30-SCLC and the DS-GPA classifications.

PurposeIntensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is known to be sensitive to patient setup and range uncertainty issues. Multiple robust optimization methods have been developed to mitigate the impact of these uncertainties. Here, we propose a new robust optimization method, which provides an alternative way of robust optimization in IMPT, and is clinically practical, which will enable users to control the balance between nominal plan quality and plan robustness in a user‐defined fashion.MethodWe calculated nine individual dose distributions which corresponded to one nominal and eight extreme scenarios caused by patient setup and proton beam's range uncertainties. For each voxel, the normalized dose interval (NDI) is defined as the full dose range variation divided by the maximum dose in all uncertainty scenarios (NDI = [max – min dose]/max dose), which was then used to calculate the normalized dose interval volume histogram (NDIVH) curves. The areas under the NDIVH curves were used to quantify plan robustness. A normalized dose interval volume constraint (NDIVC) applied to the target was incorporated to specify the desired robustness which was user‐defined. Users could then explore the trade‐off between nominal plan quality and plan robustness by adjusting the position of the NDIVCs on the NDIVH curves freely. We benchmarked our method using one lung, five head and neck (H&N), and three prostate cases by comparing our results to those derived using the voxel‐wise worst‐case robust optimization.ResultsUsing the benchmark cases, our new method achieved quality IMPT plans comparable to those derived from the voxel‐wise worst‐case robust optimization for both nominal plan quality and plan robustness in general; even more conformal and more homogeneous target dose distributions in some cases, if proper NDIVCs were applied. The AUC under NDIVH, as a precise quantitative index of plan robustness, was consistent with DVH bandwidths. Additionally, we demonstrated the feasibility of adjusting the position of NDIVCs in the NDIVH curves which allowed users to explore the trade‐off between nominal plan quality and plan robustness.ConclusionsThe NDIVH‐based robust optimization method provided a novel and individualized way of robust optimization in IMPT, and enables users to adjust the balance between nominal plan quality and plan robustness in a user‐defined fashion. This method is applicable for continued improvement and developing the next generation of IMPT planning algorithms in the future.

Background Platinum and etoposide with thoracic radiation followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation constitute the standard treatment for limited‐stage small cell lung cancer (LS‐SCLC). Many patients with LS‐SCLC are elderly with comorbidities. Methods Individual patient data were collected from 11 phase 2 or 3 trials for LS‐SCLC conducted by the National Clinical Trials Network and activated from 1990 to 2010. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); the secondary endpoints were progression‐free survival (PFS), the rate of severe adverse events, and off‐treatment reasons. The outcomes were compared for patients 70 years old or older (elderly patients) and patients younger than 70 years (younger patients). Results Individual patient data from 1049 younger patients (81%) and 254 elderly patients (19%) were analyzed. In the multivariate model, elderly patients, in comparison with younger patients, had worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18‐1.63; median OS for elderly patients, 17.8 months; OS for younger patients, 23.5 months) and worse PFS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03‐1.39; median PFS for elderly patients, 10.6 months; median PFS for younger patients, 12.3 months). Elderly patients, in comparison with younger patients, experienced more grade 5 adverse events (8% vs 3%; P < .01) and more grade 3 or higher dyspnea (11% vs 7%; P = .03) but less grade 3 or higher esophagitis/dysphagia (14% vs 19%; P = .04) and less grade 3 or higher vomiting (11% vs 17%; P = .01). Elderly patients completed treatment less often, discontinued treatment because of adverse events and patient refusal more frequently, and died during treatment more frequently. Conclusions Elderly patients with LS‐SCLC have worse PFS and OS and more difficulty in tolerating therapy. Future trials should incorporate assessments of elderly patients, novel monitoring of adverse events, and more tolerable radiation and systemic therapies.

AbstractPurposeTo compare dosimetric performance of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and small‐spot intensity‐modulated proton therapy for stage III non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods and MaterialsA total of 24 NSCLC patients were retrospectively reviewed; 12 patients received intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and the remaining 12 received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTV) on averaged 4D‐CTs. The dose‐volume‐histograms (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases of each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.ResultsCompared with VMAT, IMPT delivered significantly lower cord Dmax, heart Dmean, and lung V5 Gy[RBE] with comparable CTV dose homogeneity, and protection of other OARs. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT plans were statistically better than VMAT plans in heart Dmean, but were statistically worse in CTV dose coverage, cord Dmax, lung Dmean, and V5 Gy[RBE]. Other DVH indices were comparable. The IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements with interplay effects considered.ConclusionsSmall‐spot IMPT improves cord, heart, and lung sparing compared to VMAT and achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness at least for the patients included in this study with motion amplitude less than 11 mm. Our study supports the usage of IMPT to treat some lung cancer patients.

e16555 Background: The ProtecT trial underscores the importance of treatment in men with prostate cancer and life expectancies > 10 years and the validity of radiation therapy (RT). RT can be given with photons or protons (PT). To address the controversy of which is better, clinical outcomes of photon-based intensity modulated RT (IMRT) and PT cohorts from 2 institutions were directly compared. Methods: Under respective IRB approvals, data from 2 cohorts were analyzed. The first was 301 men treated with ultrasound image guided IMRT from 2000-05 to 75.6 Gy in 42 fractions. The second was 1214 men treated with fiducial image guided PT from 2006-10 to 78 CGE in 39 fractions. Median age and followup were 74 y and 7.2 y for IMRT and 66 y and 5.6 y for PT. Hormone therapy (ADT) was used with IMRT and PT, respectively, in 3% and 7% of low-risk patients, 25% and 9.9% of intermediate-risk, and 91% and 57.8% of high-risk. Comparative endpoints were age-stratified 5-year (5Y) survival (OS), ≥ grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and urologic (GU) toxicity, and 5Y freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP). Results: There was a lower prevalence of GI (1.3% vs 0.1%, p = 0.0065) and GU (4.3% vs 0.1%, p < 0.0001) toxicity at last follow-up in the PT group. In the IMRT and PT cohorts, OS rates were 90.8% and 88.7% in men ≥75 (p = 0.4083). In men < 75, OS rates were 91.6% and 97.5% in the IMRT and PT low-risk patients (p = 0.003), 92.1% and 95.5% in the IMRT and PT intermediate-risk (p = 0.0535), and 92.0% and 90.0% (p = 0.4975) in the IMRT and PT high-risk. In the IMRT and PT cohorts, respectively, FFBP rates were 92.2% and 98.9% for low-risk patients (p < 0.0001), 87.3% and 94.5% for intermediate-risk patients(p = 0.0226), and 80.3% and 74.4% for high-risk patients (p = 0.5154). Conclusions: In this retrospective comparison of outcomes in cohorts of men treated with IMRT and PT for prostate cancer, FFBP rates were better with PT for men with low- and intermediate-risk disease and similar in men with high-risk disease despite longer and more frequent use of ADT in the IMRT cohort. This study underscores the difficulty of comparing retrospective series, with differences noted in age, RT dose, and ADT use between cohorts. However, the magnitude of improvement with PT is intriguing and warrants prospective testing.