RESUMO
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Metastasis-directed therapy with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the setting of oligometastatic disease is a rapidly evolving paradigm given ongoing improvements in systemic therapies and diagnostic modalities. However, SBRT to targets in the abdomen and pelvis is historically associated with concerns about toxicity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SBRT to the abdomen and pelvis for women with oligometastases from primary gynecological tumors. MATERIALS/METHODS: From our IRB-approved registry, all patients who were treated with SBRT between 2014 and 2020 were identified. Oligometastatic disease was defined as 1 to 5 discrete foci of clinical metastasis radiographically diagnosed by positron emission tomography (PET) and/or computerized tomography (CT) imaging. The primary endpoint was local control at 12 months. Local and distant control rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Time intervals for development of local progression and distant progression were calculated based on follow up visits with re-staging imaging. Acute and late toxicity outcomes were determined based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. RESULTS: We identified 34 women with 43 treated lesions. Median age was 68 years (range 32-82), and median follow up time was 12 months (range 0.2-54.0). Most common primary tumor sites were ovarian (n=12), uterine (n=11), and cervical (n=7). Median number of previous lines of systemic therapy agents at time of SBRT was 2 (range 0-10). Overall, SBRT was delivered to 1 focus of oligometastasis in 29 cases, 2 foci in 2 cases, 3 foci in 2 cases, and 4 foci in 1 case. All patients were treated comprehensively with SBRT to all sites of oligometastasis. Median prescription dose was 24 Gy (range 18-54 Gy) in 3 fractions (range 3-6) to a median prescription isodose line of 83.5% (range 52-95). Local control by lesion at 12 and 24 months was 92.5% for both time points. Local failure was observed in three treated sites among two patients, two of which were at 11 months in one patient, and the other at 30 months. Systemic control rate was 60.2% at 12 months. Overall survival at 12 and 24 months was 85% and 70.2%, respectively. Acute grade 2 toxicities included nausea (n=3), and there were no grade > 3 acute toxicities. Late grade 1 toxicities included diarrhea (n=1) and fatigue (n=1), and there were no grade > 2 toxicities. CONCLUSION: SBRT to oligometastatic gynecologic malignancies in the abdomen and pelvis is feasible with encouraging preliminary safety and local control outcomes. This approach is associated with excellent local control and low rates of toxicity during our follow-up interval. Further investigations into technique, dose-escalation and utilization are warranted.
RESUMO
Purpose: To assess the optimal planning target volume (PTV) margins for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of prostate cancer based on inter- and intra-fractional prostate motion determined from daily image guidance. Methods and Materials: Two hundred and five patients who were enrolled on two prospective studies of SBRT (8 Gy × 5 fractions) for localized prostate cancer treated at a single institution between 2012 and 2017 had complete inter- and intra-fractional shift data available. All patients had scheduled kilovoltage planar imaging during SBRT with rigid registration to intraprostatic fiducials prior to each of four half-arcs delivered per fraction, as well as cone beam CT verification of anatomy prior to each fraction. Inter- and intra- fractional shift data were obtained to estimate the required PTV margins based on the classic van Herk formula. Inter- and intra-fractional motion were compared between patients with and without severe toxicities using the independent two-sample Wilcoxon test. Results: The margins required to account for inter-fractional motion were estimated to be 0.99, 1.52, and 1.45 cm in lateral (LR), longitudinal (SI), and vertical (AP) directions, respectively. The margins required to account for intra-fractional motion were estimated to be 0.19, 0.27, and 0.31 cm in LR, SI and AP directions, respectively. Large intra-fractional shifts were mostly observed in the SI and AP directions, with 2.0 and 5.4% of patients experiencing average intra-fractional motion >3 mm in the SI and AP directions, respectively, compared with none experiencing mean shifts >3 mm in the LR direction. Six patients experienced grade 3 gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. There were no significant differences in mean inter- or intra-fractional motion in any of the cardinal directions compared to patients without severe toxicity (inter-fractional p = 0.46-0.99, intra-fractional p = 0.10-0.84). Conclusion: The inter- and intra-fractional margins estimated from this study are in line with prior reported values. Intra-fractional prostate motion was generally small with larger margins required for the SI and AP directions, notably just slightly exceeding the commonly used 3 mm posterior PTV margin even with realignment between half-arcs. Development of severe toxicity was not significantly associated with the degree of inter- or intra-fractional motion.
