Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology
description
Transcript of Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology
![Page 1: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Workshop on Advanced Technologies
in Radiation Oncology
Minesh Mehta
![Page 2: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Principal “Dose-Limiting Toxicity”Brain Tumors
Principal “Dose-Limiting Toxicity”Brain Tumors
Necrosis rates of ~5% starting at 60 Gy.
72 Gy with altered fractionation
Visual damage of ~1-3% starting at >54 Gy.
Endocrine damage starts at ~45 Gy.
Neurocognitive damage:
Depends on what you measure, when, & age
Cochlear dysfunction starts at >50 Gy
![Page 3: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Evidence Levels
Logically, few of the toxicity data come from phase III trials with toxicity endpoints.
Most come from phase I trials, or “institutional experiences”
Numerous variables need to be teased out separately, e.g., age, volume, fractionation, comorbidities, other therapies, etc.
![Page 4: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
An example of a phase III trial: RTOG
9006: 60 vs. 72 Gy for GBM
Late Toxicities
Assigned Treatment Standard
(n=305) HFX
(n=318) Grade Grade 3 4 5 3 4 5 Neurological 3 3 0 7 2 0 Pulmonary 0 2 3 5 1 3 Hepatic 8 0 0 0 0 0 Infection 0 0 0 1 0 0 Mucous membrane 1 0 0 0 0 0 Nausea & vomiting 2 0 0 1 0 0 Ototoxicity 0 1 0 1 0 0 Other 0 1 2 0 0 0 Skin 3 0 0 1 0 0 Worst Non -Hematologic Overall
12 7 5 13 3 3
(4%) (2%) (2%) (4%) (1%) (1%)
![Page 5: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Further Dose Escalation: Necrosis
CCG BSG Trials went upto 78 Gy (1 Gy bid) U Mich 3 D Trials went upto 90 Gy with reduced volumes
Recent RTOG 3D dose-escalation trial (9803):
PTV2 < 75 cc: escalated to 84 Gy (n = 95)PTV2 > 75 cc: escalated to 84 Gy (n = 109)Group Level n % RT Necrosis (95% CI)
Group 1 66 Gy 19 5.0% (0, 15.3%)
72 Gy 20 10.0% (0, 23.1%)
78 Gy 24 8.3% (0, 19.4%)
84 Gy 15 6.7% (0, 19.3%)
Group 2 66 Gy 29
72 Gy 18
78 Gy 32 6.2% (0, 14.6%)
84 Gy 10
![Page 6: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
An Example: Risk of Dementia with WBRT for Brain Metastases
Retrospective study of 47 patients one-year survivors treated at MSKCC 5/47 (11%) patients treated with WBRT developed severe dementia:
6 Gy x 3, 4 Gy x 35 Gy x 3, 3 Gy x 55 Gy x 3, 3 Gy x 4 6 Gy x 3, 4 Gy x 3 + adria analog3 Gy x 10 + radiosensitizer
0f 15 patients treated with <3 Gy/fx, 0 had dementia
DeAngelis LM, et.al. Neurosurgery 1989;24:798-805.
Dementia associated with high-dose fractions.
![Page 7: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Can SRS or SRT reduce toxicities?
Few direct comparisons exist Significant dose-escalation can be achieved
In general, necrosis rates remain under 5% However, only small volumes are generally treated For long-term toxicity, benign tumors need to be studied
and these are generally not included on any clinical trials, e.g. meningioma, vestibular schwannoma, etc.
![Page 8: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
RTOG 90-05: Phase I SRS trial 156 patients with rec CNS tumors < 40 mm diameter SRS dose by size For < 20 mm tumors, dose not escalated > 24 Gy
Size Dose n Grade 3, 4, 5 CNS tox
mm Gy Acute Chronic Total %
20
18
21
24
12
18
10
0
0
0
0
6
10
0
6
10
21-30
15
18
21
24
15
15
13
12
7
0
7
33
7
20
31
8
14
20
38
41
31-40
12
15
18
21
22
18
5
0
17
5
14
28
10
14
45
![Page 9: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
An example of a phase III trial: RTOG 9305: SRS boost for GBM
60 Gy + BCNU +/- SRS boost (15-24 Gy) 186 analyzable patients 4 vs 0 G3 late neuro toxicity in SRS arm QOL comparable (Spitzer) MMSE comparable Quality-adjusted survival comparable
![Page 10: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
RTOG 9508: QOL, ToxicityTrait WBRT +RS p
KPS @ 3 mo 33% 50% .02
KPS @ 6 mo 27% 43% .03
Tumor RR @ 3 mo 62% 73% .04
Edema RR @ 3 mo* 47% 70% .0017
Actuarial LC @ 1 yr 71% 82% .01
CNS death 31% 28% ns
G3/4 late tox < 2% < 3% ns
* Significantly lower steroid dependence on RS arm
No difference in outcome by technique, Linac vs. Gamma Knife
![Page 11: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
VS Radiosurgery vs FSRTAuthor Year N LC V n VII n VIII n Noren 1998 669 95% 38% 33% 65%Flickinger 2001 190 97% 1% 3% 71%Spiegelman 2001 40 98% 8% 71%Prasad 2000 200 94% 2.5% 1.5% 40%Miller 1999 42 95% 29% 38%Miller 1999 40 100% 15% 8%Foote 2001 149 93% 12% (5%) 10% (2%)
Author Year N Dose LC V n VII n VIII n Poen 1999 33 21/3/24 hr 97% 16% 3% 77%Shirato 2000 45 36-50/20-25 92% 0% 0%Meijer 2000 37 20-25/4-5 91% 3% 0% 66%Varlotto 1996 12 54/30 100% 8% 0% 92%Shirato 1999 27 36-44/20-22 98% 0% 0%
![Page 12: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Dose, Length & Complications
Flickinger, IJROBP
![Page 13: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Andrews et al, Int J Rad Onc Biol Phys 50:1265-1278, 2001
Pro
babi
lity
of
Ser
vice
able
Hea
rin
g
![Page 14: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Intensity Modulated RT
![Page 15: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Shannon M MacDonald1, Salahuddin Ahmad2, Stefanos Kachris3, Betty J Vogds2, Melissa DeRouen3, Alicia E Gitttleman3, Keith DeWyngaert3, Maria T Vlachaki4
1 Massachusetts General Hospital 2 University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
3 New York University Medical Center4 Wayne State University
INTENSITY MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY VERSUS THREE DIMENSIONAL CONFORMAL RADIATION THERAPY FOR THE TREATMENT
OF HIGH GRADE GLIOMA: A DOSIMETRIC COMPARISON
![Page 16: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
STUDY DESIGN
•Dosimetric comparison of IMRT versus 3DCRT in twenty patients with high-grade glioma. •Prescribed Dose: 59.4 Gy, 33 fractions, 4-10 MV
•Dose constraints for brainstem: 55-60 Gy
•Dose constraints for optic chiasm & nerves: 50-54 Gy
•DVHs for target, brain, brainstem and optic nerves/chiasm were generated and compared
•TCP and NTCP were also calculated and compared
![Page 17: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
p=0.004
Brainstem
0
10
20
30
40
50
% > 45Gy % > 54Gy
Pe
rce
nt
Org
an
Vo
lum
e
IMRT
3DCRT
p=0.004
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
min PTV max PTV mean PTV min PTVcd max PTVcd mean PTVcd
Dos
e (G
y) IMRT
3DCRT
p=0.023
p=0.006p=0.01
p=0.003 p≤0.0001
Optic Chiasm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% > 45Gy % > 50.4Gy
Perc
ent O
rgan
Vol
ume
IMRT
3DCRT
p=0.047
p=0.047
Brain
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% > 18Gy % > 24Gy % > 45Gy
Dos
e (G
y)
IMRT
3DCRT
p=0.06 p=0
.01
p<0.0001
p=0.059
p=0.015
p≤0.0001
COMPARISON OF TARGET AND NORMAL TISSUE DOSIMETRY:
IMRT v. 3DCRT
![Page 18: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
So, Can IMRT further reduce toxicities?
Almost no direct comparisons exist Significantly improved DVHs can be achieved
These may be meaningful for sites such as the chiasm,
pit gland, hypothalamus, hippocampus, etc. Limited data support that cochlear sparing in the
pediatric population might preserve hearing
![Page 19: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Subventricular zone stem cell compartment Remains mitotically active in adulthood Cells have self-renewal capacity
and differentiate into neurons or glia whichcan migrate over long distances in the brainand are involved in repair processes after brain injury/toxicity
In young rats, irradiation with 2 Gy produces apoptosis in the subependymal cell layer and also in the proliferating cellsin the hippocampus
which leads to prolonged impairment of repopulative capacity
Compartmental Studies: Stem Cells
Doetsch, 1999; Hopewell, 1972; Bellinzona, 1996; Peissner, 1999; Tada, 1999
![Page 20: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Many patients exhibit learning/memory deficits with no pathologic changes, especially when the RT field involves the temporal lobes.
Recent work has shown that hippocampus-dependent learning and memory are strongly influenced by the activity of neural stem cells and their proliferative progeny.
The hippocampal granule cell layer undergoes continuous renewal and restructuring by the addition of new neurons.
Radiation at low doses affects the highly proliferative progenitors. A single low dose to the cranium of a mature rat is sufficient to ablate hippocampal neurogenesis.
The Role of the Hippocampus
Monje ML: Radiation injury and neurogenesis. Current Opinion in Neurology. 16:129-34, 2003.
![Page 21: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Hippocampus Avoidance Hypothesis
The hippocampus plays a significant role in RT induced dementia
Doses as low as 2 Gy cause significant toxicity to the hippocampus
Conformal avoidance of the hippocampus may help reduce neurocognitive deficits
![Page 22: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Hippocampus Delineation by Software
![Page 23: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Hippocampus Avoidance with IMRT
30 Gy6 Gy3 GY
Avoidance Region
IMRT with tomotherapyachieves significant dosereduction (hippocampus), while delivering 30 Gy to the rest of the brain
![Page 24: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Can IGRT further reduce toxicities?
Even in the head, positioning is a significant issue IGRT reveals this dramatically Application of IGRT might permit more accurate dose
delivery H/N serves as a good surrogate for the brain in this
regard
![Page 25: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Study Design
Twenty patients analyzed 10 conventional patients
Prospectively enrolled Daily measurements (6 degrees of freedom) with optically
guided patient localization system
10 IMRT patients Plans analyzed and selected analysis of impact daily set-up
variation
![Page 26: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Mean Set-up Error (SD)
Mean Vector: 6.97 mm
Patient No.
Lateral (mm)
A-P (mm)
Cranio-caudal (mm)
Couch (deg)
Spin (deg)
Tilt (deg)
Vector (mm)
1 -4.7(2.2) 0.3(2.3) 2.8(1.9) 0.5(1.5) -3.2(1.6) 0.4(1.1) 6.2(2.0) 2 4.0(3.7) 1.5(1.8) -0.2(1.5) 1.4(1.7) 4.2(1.1) 2.0(1.5) 5.4(2.9) 3 -0.3(1.7) 0.5(3.4) 2.8(1.3) -0.7(0.7) -0.7(0.9) 2.8(1.1) 4.7(1.6) 4 -4.0(1.0) 1.7(2.4) -3.8(1.3) 1.6(0.6) 1.4(0.6) 2.0(1.2) 6.3(1.3) 5 3.5(2.1) 1.1(1.3) 3.2(1.3) 0.8(1.1) 1.4(1.8) 0.0(0.7) 5.4(1.4) 6 -3.6(2.5) 12.3(3.4) 0.5(4.7) -0.1(1.3) 2.9(1.3) -3.3(1.9) 13.8(3.3) 7 7.1(2.3) 8.0(2.0) 4.6(2.4) -1.5(0.9) 3.0(1.3) -2.4(1.4) 11.9(2.7) 8 4.2(1.9) -3.8(3.1) 0.0(1.8) 1.6(1.2) -2.8(0.9) -0.3(1.3) 6.3(2.8) 9 -0.8(2.8) 5.0(4.0) -2.8(2.5) -0.8(1.6) 1.9(1.9) -0.1(1.5) 7.4(2.9)
10 -0.1(2.0) -2.3(3.3) -1.0(2.5) 0.7(0.7) 3.9(5.3) 2.2(1.5) 4.6(2.3) group 0.8(4.4) 2.1(5.1) 0.4(3.4) 0.5(1.6) 1.4(3.2) 0.5(2.3) 6.97(3.63)
![Page 27: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
6.97 mm shift- Optic Chiasm
![Page 28: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Paranasal Sinus – Daily Offset
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
1. Ideal 3. Median
2. Best 4. Worst
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
1. Ideal 3. Median
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Treatment #
Vec
tor
(mm
)
1. Ideal 3. Median
2. Best 4. Worst
![Page 29: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Low grade astrocytoma SchwannomaAnaplastic astrocytoma CraniopharyngiomaGBM Pituitary tumorsLow grade oligo CNS germ cell tumorsAnaplastic oligo Pilocytic astrocytomaMixed gliomas GangliogliomaEpendymoma HemangioblastomaPNET HemangiopericytomaCNS lymphoma SarcomaMeningioma Choroid plexus carcinoma
CNS Tumors with a role for Radiotherapy
![Page 30: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Roles of Radiotherapy
Post-op adjunct to: decrease local failure delay progression/relapse prolong survival, eg GBM, AA
Primary curative therapy: PNET, Germ Cell Tumors, Pilocytic astrocytoma
To halt tumor growth: Meningioma, Schwannoma
To alter endocrine functionTo palliate
![Page 31: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Radiotherapy Improves Survival
Disease Survival(no XRT)
Survival(with XRT)
PNET < 10% 50-70%
CNS Germinoma < 5% > 90%
Craniopharyngioma 10 yr: 37% 10 yr: 77%
Vest Schwannoma 5yrPFS >90% 5yrPFS: > 90%
Glioblastoma MS: 18 wks MS: 42 wks
![Page 32: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Radiotherapy improves Local Control
Outcome TR STR STR/RT
5-YR SURV 81% 53% 89%
10-YR SURV 69% 37% 77%
RECURRENCE 29% 73% 17%
Craniopharyngioma as a case-study: 34 literature reports
Diminished Local Failure Rates Impact Survival
![Page 33: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Radiotherapy diminishes Local Failure
Outcome TR STR STR/RT
5-YR PROGR 5% 37% 11%
10-YR PROGR 10% 55% 23%
15-YR PROGR 32% 91%
Meningioma as a case-study: Literature reports
![Page 34: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
The Impact of Radiation Dose
Medulloblastoma as a case-study: Literature reports
Author Year <50 Gy >50 GyHarisiadis 1977 24% 48%Cumberlin 1979 17% 86%
Berry 1981 42% 78%Silverman 1982 38% 80%Kopelson 1983 50% 78%
CCG 1987 33% 58%
Decreasing posterior fossa dose increases relapses
![Page 35: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
The Impact of Radiation Dose
2 -ve Ph III trialsCCG 923: 36 (#44) vs. 23.4 (#45)
Gy CSI.3 yr isolated neuraxis failure:
2/44 vs. 11/45.SIOP II: 4 arms; 35 vs. 25 Gy CSI
+/- pre-RT chemo5 yr RFS= 75 vs. 42% for chemo
RT arms
01020
30405060
7080
CCG SIOP
3/5 yr RFS (CCG & SIOP)
24 Gy
36 Gy
Medulloblastoma as a case-study: Clinical Trials
Decreasing CSI dose increases relapses
![Page 36: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
GBM: Dose Escalation
1201008060402000
20
40
60
80
100
120
Dose (Gy)
Med
ian
Surv
ival
(W
ks)
No RT BTCG, RTOG, ECOG
UCSF/Harvard: Control
RTOG HFX
Canada TID
UCSF/Harvard: Implant1. Dose escalation matters
2. Focal boost volumes can be identified
3. RT can be focally delivered
RTOG 9803 (3D CRT)is exploring this range
![Page 37: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
RTOG 9305: GBM RS Ph III trial
203 patients with GBM60 Gy + BCNU +/- RS boost (15-24 Gy)Median f/u 44 monthsMS: 14.1 vs 13.7 months2 yr survival: 22 vs 18%3 yr survival: 16 vs 8%General QOL & cognitive function
comparable
Souhami, ASTRO 2002
RADIOSURGERY NOT PROVEN TO PROLONG SURVIVAL IN GBM
![Page 38: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Technologies for dose-escalation
5 field Fractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy Technique
Phase II RTOG trial: RTOG 0023
![Page 39: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
RTOG 0023: Results
Cardinale, Red J, 2006
FSRT MIGHT BENEFIT GROSS-TOTALLY RESECTED GBM
Although overall survivalwas not improved, there was a trend toward improvedsurvival with FSRT forpatients with total resection
![Page 40: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
RTOG 9508 Phase III Single Brain Mets: Survival
RT + SRS (Median survival = 6.5 mo)
RT alone (Median survival = 4.9 mo)
P=0.0470
100
80
60
40
20
00 6 12 18 24
Months
Pe
rce
nt
aliv
e
SRS = stereotactic radiosurgery.
![Page 41: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Infiltrative Margins
A B
Mets GBM
![Page 42: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
MRSI for Treatment Planning34 pts (22 G3, 12 G4) evaluated with MRI/MRSIMRI contours:T2 for initial field; T1 for boostMRSI: Multivoxel technique: CNI (Choline/NAA
Index)Results: MRSI would change fields
T2 estimated microscopic region 50% larger than MRSI
T2 missed MRSI abnormality in 88% of pts (upto 28 mm)
T1 suggested lesser volume than MRSI T1 suggested different location than MRSI
Pirzkall A: IJROBP 2001
McKnight: J Neurosurg, 2002: 90% sensitivity & 86% biopsy specificity for CNI >2.5
![Page 43: Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022081520/568149df550346895db706b7/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Conclusions
Radiotherapy plays a major role in the management of most primary brain tumors
Local failure is still paramountFailed strategies: limited dose escalation,
neutrons, brachytherapy, Imidazoles & BUdRNewer technologies may allow an improved
therapeutic index