Moningi Shalini, Ludmir Ethan B, Polamraju Praveen, Williamson Tyler, Melkun Marcella M, Herman Joseph D, Krishnan Sunil, Koay Eugene J, Koong Albert C, Minsky Bruce D, Smith Grace L, Taniguchi Cullen, Das Prajnan, Holliday Emma B
Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
School of Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, United States.
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2019 Aug 27;19:59-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2019.08.004. eCollection 2019 Nov.
Pelvic reirradiation (re-RT) presents challenges due to concerns for late toxicity to tissues-at-risk including pelvic bone marrow (PBM). We routinely utilize a hyperfractionated, accelerated re-RT for recurrent rectal or anal cancer in the setting of prior radiation. We hypothesized that proton beam radiation (PBR) is uniquely suited to limit doses to pelvic non-target tissues better than photon-based approaches.
All patients who received hyperfractionated, accelerated PBR re-RT to the pelvis from 2007 to 2017 were identified. Re-RT was delivered twice daily with a 6 h minimum interfraction interval at 1.5 Gray Relative Biological Effectiveness (Gy(RBE)) per fraction to a total dose of 39-45 Gy(RBE). Concurrent chemotherapy was given to all patients. Comparison photon plans were generated for dosimetric analysis. Dosimetric parameters compared using a matched-pair analysis and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Survival analysis was performed Kaplan Meier curves.
Fifteen patients were identified, with a median prior pelvic RT dose of 50.4 Gy (range 25-80 Gy). Median time between the initial RT and PBRT re-RT was 4.7 years (range 1.0-36.1 years). In comparison to corresponding photon re-RT plans, PBR re-RT plans had lower mean PBM dose, and lower volume of PBM getting 5 Gy, 10 Gy, 20 Gy, and 30 Gy (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.033, respectively).With median 13.9 months follow-up after PBR re-RT, five patients had developed local recurrences, and four patients had developed distant metastases. One-year overall survival following PBR re-RT was 67.5% and one-year progression free survival was 58.7%. No patients developed acute or late Grade 4 toxicity.
PBR re-RT affords improved sparing of PBM compared with photon-based re-RT. Clinically, PBR re-RT is well-tolerated. However, given modest control rates with definitive re-RT without subsequent surgical resection, a multidisciplinary approach should be favored in this setting when feasible.
盆腔再照射(再放疗)存在挑战,因为担心对包括盆腔骨髓(PBM)在内的危险组织产生晚期毒性。在先前接受过放疗的情况下,我们常规采用超分割加速再放疗来治疗复发性直肠癌或肛管癌。我们假设质子束放疗(PBR)在限制盆腔非靶组织剂量方面比基于光子的方法具有独特优势。
确定了2007年至2017年间所有接受盆腔超分割加速PBR再放疗的患者。再放疗每天进行两次,每次分割间隔至少6小时,每次分割剂量为1.5相对生物效应剂量(Gy(RBE)),总剂量为39 - 45 Gy(RBE)。所有患者均接受同步化疗。生成对照光子计划用于剂量分析。使用配对分析和Wilcoxon符号秩检验比较剂量参数。采用Kaplan - Meier曲线进行生存分析。
共确定15例患者,先前盆腔放疗的中位剂量为50.4 Gy(范围25 - 80 Gy)。初始放疗与PBRT再放疗之间的中位时间为4.7年(范围1.0 - 36.1年)。与相应的光子再放疗计划相比,PBR再放疗计划的PBM平均剂量更低,接受5 Gy、10 Gy、20 Gy和30 Gy剂量的PBM体积也更小(p分别<0.001、<0.001、<0.001和 = 0.033)。PBR再放疗后中位随访13.9个月,5例患者出现局部复发,4例患者出现远处转移。PBR再放疗后1年总生存率为67.5%,1年无进展生存率为58.7%。无患者发生急性或晚期4级毒性反应。
与基于光子的再放疗相比,PBR再放疗能更好地减少PBM受量。临床上,PBR再放疗耐受性良好。然而,鉴于单纯再放疗且无后续手术切除时的控制率一般,在可行的情况下,这种情况下应优先采用多学科方法。