Radiobiological evaluation of simultaneously dose-escalated versus non-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy for patients with upper thoracic esophageal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the radiobiological response between simultaneously dose-escalated and non-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (DE-IMRT and NE-IMRT) for patients with upper thoracic esophageal cancer (UTEC) using radiobiological evaluation. METHODS: Computed tomography simulation data sets for 25 patients pathologically diagnosed with primary UTEC were used in this study. DE-IMRT plan with an escalated dose of 64.8 Gy/28 fractions to the gross tumor volume (GTV) and involved lymph nodes from 25 patients pathologically diagnosed with primary UTEC, was compared to an NE-IMRT plan of 50.4 Gy/28 fractions. Dose-volume metrics, tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability for the lung and spinal cord were compared. In addition, the risk of acute esophageal toxicity (AET) and late esophageal toxicity (LET) were also analyzed. RESULTS: Compared with NE-IMRT plan, we found the DE-IMRT plan resulted in a 14.6 Gy dose escalation to the GTV. The tumor control was predicted to increase by 31.8%, 39.1%, and 40.9% for three independent TCP models. The predicted incidence of radiation pneumonitis was similar (3.9% versus 3.6%), and the estimated risk of radiation-induced spinal cord injury was extremely low (<0.13%) in both groups. Regarding the esophageal toxicities, the estimated grade ≥2 and grade ≥3 AET predicted by the Kwint model were increased by 2.5% and 3.8%. Grade ≥2 AET predicted using the Wijsman model was increased by 14.9%. The predicted incidence of LET was low (<0.51%) in both groups. CONCLUSION: Radiobiological evaluation reveals that the DE-IMRT dosing strategy is feasible for patients with UTEC, with significant gains in tumor control and minor or clinically acceptable increases in radiation-induced toxicities.

Different definitions of esophagus influence esophageal toxicity prediction for esophageal cancer patients administered simultaneous integrated boost versus standard-dose radiation therapy.

We aim to evaluate whether different definitions of esophagus (DEs) impact on the esophageal toxicity prediction for esophageal cancer (EC) patients administered intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT) vs. standard-dose IMRT (SD-IMRT). The esophagus for 21 patients diagnosed with primary EC were defined in the following four ways: the whole esophagus, including the tumor (ESOwhole); ESOwhole within the treatment field (ESOinfield); ESOinfield, excluding the tumor (ESOinfield-tumor) and ESOwhole, excluding the tumor (ESOwhole-tumor). The difference in the dose variation, acute esophageal toxicity (AET) and late esophageal toxicity (LET) of four DEs were compared. We found that the mean esophageal dose for ESOwhole, ESOinfield, ESOinfield-tumor and ESOwhole-tumor were increased by 7.2 Gy, 10.9 Gy, 4.6 Gy and 2.0 Gy, respectively, in the SIB-IMRT plans. Radiobiological models indicated that a grade ≥ 2 AET was 2.9%, 3.1%, 2.2% and 1.6% higher on average with the Kwint model and 14.6%, 13.2%, 7.2% and 3.4% higher with the Wijsman model for the four DEs. A grade ≥ 3 AET increased by 4.3%, 7.2%, 4.2% and 1.2%, respectively. Additionally, the predicted LET increased by 0.15%, 0.39%, 1.2 × 10-2% and 1.5 × 10-3%. Our study demonstrates that different DEs influence the esophageal toxicity prediction for EC patients administered SIB-IMRT vs. SD-IMRT treatment.

[Long-term efficacy of prophylactic upper neck irradiation for stage N0 nasopharyngeal carcinoma].

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Whether prophylactic irradiation should cover the whole neck or just the upper neck for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients, without neck lymph node metastasis (N0), remains controversial. This study was to assess the rationality of prophylactic upper neck irradiation for stage N0 NPC patients. METHODS: Clinical data of 432 stage N0 NPC patients were analyzed. All patients were treated with radical radiotherapy alone. The extent of prophylactic irradiation was limited to the upper neck of the patients. Median radiation doses were 70 Gy for the primary tumors, and 50 Gy for the upper necks. Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze survival rates and neck recurrence rates. Log-rank test was used to compare neck recurrence rates in patients with or without nasopharyngeal recurrence. Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the prognostic factors for neck control. RESULTS: Seventeen out of 432 patients had neck recurrence. The 5-year control rate of the neck was 96.06%. Among the 17 patients with neck recurrence, 6 had concurrent nasopharyngeal relapse. The occurrence rates of neck recurrence alone were 0.93%(4/432) in the upper necks and 1.62% (7/432) in the lower necks (P=0.937). The neck recurrence rates were 9.52% (6/63) and 2.98% (11/369) in patients with and without nasopharyngeal recurrence, respectively (P=0.002). Nasopharyngeal recurrence was the only independent prognostic factor for neck control. CONCLUSION: The overall neck recurrence rate is low for stage N0 NPC patients after receiving irradiation. Prophylactic upper neck irradiation is reasonable for stage N0 NPC patients.