Intensity-modulated radiation therapy administered to a previously irradiated spine is effective and well-tolerated

Purpose This study sought to discern the clinical outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) administered to the spine in patients who had undergone previous radiotherapy. Methods A total of 81 sites of 74 patients who underwent previous radiotherapy administered to the spine or peri-spine and subsequently received IMRT for the spine were analyzed in this study. The prescribed dose of 80 Gy in a biologically effective dose (BED) of α/β = 10 (BED10) was set as the planning target volume. The constraint for the spinal cord and cauda equine was D0.1 cc ≤ 100 Gy and ≤ 150 Gy of BED for re-irradiation alone and the total irradiation dose, respectively. Results The median follow-up period was 10.1 (0.9–92.1) months after re-irradiation, while the median interval from the last day of the previous radiotherapy to the time of re-irradiation was 15.6 (0.4–210.1) months. Separately, the median prescript dose of re-irradiation was 78.0 (28.0–104.9) of BED10. The median survival time in this study was 13.9 months, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates of 53.7%, 29.3%, and 26.6%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year local control rates were 90.8%, 84.0%, and 84.0%, respectively. Neurotoxicity was observed in two of 72 treatments (2.8%) assessed after re-irradiation. Conclusion Re-irradiation for the spine using IMRT seems well-tolerated. Definitive re-irradiation can be a feasible treatment option in patients with the potential for a good prognosis (AU)

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy administered to a previously irradiated spine is effective and well-tolerated.

PURPOSE: This study sought to discern the clinical outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) administered to the spine in patients who had undergone previous radiotherapy. METHODS: A total of 81 sites of 74 patients who underwent previous radiotherapy administered to the spine or peri-spine and subsequently received IMRT for the spine were analyzed in this study. The prescribed dose of 80 Gy in a biologically effective dose (BED) of α/ß = 10 (BED10) was set as the planning target volume. The constraint for the spinal cord and cauda equine was D0.1 cc ≤ 100 Gy and ≤ 150 Gy of BED for re-irradiation alone and the total irradiation dose, respectively. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 10.1 (0.9-92.1) months after re-irradiation, while the median interval from the last day of the previous radiotherapy to the time of re-irradiation was 15.6 (0.4-210.1) months. Separately, the median prescript dose of re-irradiation was 78.0 (28.0-104.9) of BED10. The median survival time in this study was 13.9 months, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates of 53.7%, 29.3%, and 26.6%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year local control rates were 90.8%, 84.0%, and 84.0%, respectively. Neurotoxicity was observed in two of 72 treatments (2.8%) assessed after re-irradiation. CONCLUSION: Re-irradiation for the spine using IMRT seems well-tolerated. Definitive re-irradiation can be a feasible treatment option in patients with the potential for a good prognosis.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for pulmonary metastases. Prognostic factors and adverse respiratory events.

PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for pulmonary metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between April 2007 and March 2011, 87 patients underwent SBRT for pulmonary metastases using the in-house Air-Bag System(TM) to obtain the four-dimensional image for treatment planning and to reduce intrafractional intrathoracic organ motion with abdominal compression to reduce the risk of radiation pneumonitis. Survival and respiratory adverse events were analyzed. RESULTS: The 2- and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 47 and 32 %, and the corresponding cause-specific survivals were 52 and 36 %. The 2- and 3-year OS rates were 57 and 49 % for patients in group 1, respectively, while the corresponding OS rates were 48 and 21 %, and 40 and 32 % for patients in groups 2 and 3, respectively. The 2- and 3-year local control (LC) rates were 80 and 80 %, respectively. The corresponding intrathoracic progression-free survival rates were 40 and 32 %, respectively. Concerning adverse respiratory events after SBRT for pulmonary metastases, 14 % were grade 0 (G0), 66 % G1, 13 % G2, 6 % G3, and 1 % G4. Concerning the adverse respiratory events (NCI-CTC) by grade scale, 1- and 2-year cumulative probabilities of radiation pneumonitis were 12 and 20 % for G2 and 4 and 10 % for G3/4, respectively. The mean values for cumulative V20 were 11.6 ± 8.5 %, 29.8 ± 18.6 %, and 25.7 ± 12.8 % in G0/1, G2, and G3/4, respectively. The number of pulmonary metastases that could be safely treated with SBRT was 6 PTVs (or seven gross tumor volumes) within a cumulative V20 of 30 % under the restricted intrafractional respiratory tumor motion using the Air-Bag System(TM). CONCLUSION: We propose that the number of pulmonary metastases that can be safely treated with SBRT is 6 PTVs with a cumulative V20 of 30 % under the restricted respiratory tumor motion using the Air-Bag System(TM). SBRT for pulmonary metastases offers locally effective treatment for recurrent or residual lesions after first line chemotherapy.