Dosimetry and Toxicity Comparison of Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Locally Advanced Lung Cancer Across a Large Statewide Quality Collaborative.
Steven G Allen, Caitlin A Schonewolf, Matthew J Schipper, Huiying Maggie Yin, Peter A Paximadis, Larry L Kestin, Michael Dominello, Melissa Wilson, Martha M Matuszak, James A Hayman, Shruti Jolly
{"title":"Dosimetry and Toxicity Comparison of Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Locally Advanced Lung Cancer Across a Large Statewide Quality Collaborative.","authors":"Steven G Allen, Caitlin A Schonewolf, Matthew J Schipper, Huiying Maggie Yin, Peter A Paximadis, Larry L Kestin, Michael Dominello, Melissa Wilson, Martha M Matuszak, James A Hayman, Shruti Jolly","doi":"10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.03.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Use of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for definitive chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) has been associated with decreased late pneumonitis, decreased high dose to the heart (itself associated with improved overall survival), and improved patient quality of life. In a statewide radiation oncology quality consortium, we sought to evaluate the impact of IMRT versus 3D-CRT treatment technique on dosimetry and toxicity.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>From 2012 to 2022, 1746 LA-NSCLC patients meeting inclusion criteria underwent definitive RT (90% CRT) with either 3D-CRT (n = 313) or IMRT (n = 1433) and were enrolled in the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC) prospective, multicenter statewide initiative. Physician reported toxicity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected during treatment through 6 months after RT and compared by treatment technique. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to account for differences in prognostic factors between IMRT and 3D-CRT patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with 3D-CRT patients, IMRT patients had significantly larger PTVs (median 386 cc vs 292 cc; P < .0001) and were more likely to have Stage IIIB disease (34.3% vs 23.0%; P < .0001). After adjustment using IPTW, treatment with IMRT compared with 3D-CRT reduced high dose to the lung (mean V30 Gy 17.9% vs 19.2%; P = .027) and heart (proportion with V40 Gy ≥ 20% 6.4% vs 15.3%; P < .0001). In logistic regression models using IPTW, through 6 months of early follow-up, there were no significant differences between 3D-CRT and IMRT in rates of grade 2+ acute esophagitis (odds ratio [OR] = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.73,1.42; P = .91) and grade 2+ early pneumonitis (OR = 1.62; 95% CI, 0.89, 2.96; P = .11) or in likelihood of a clinically significant decline in PROs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>With late follow-up ongoing, this study supports the continued preferential use of IMRT over 3D-CRT for LA-NSCLC treatment due to improvements in heart and lung doses.</p>","PeriodicalId":14215,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.03.007","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Use of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for definitive chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) has been associated with decreased late pneumonitis, decreased high dose to the heart (itself associated with improved overall survival), and improved patient quality of life. In a statewide radiation oncology quality consortium, we sought to evaluate the impact of IMRT versus 3D-CRT treatment technique on dosimetry and toxicity.
Methods and materials: From 2012 to 2022, 1746 LA-NSCLC patients meeting inclusion criteria underwent definitive RT (90% CRT) with either 3D-CRT (n = 313) or IMRT (n = 1433) and were enrolled in the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC) prospective, multicenter statewide initiative. Physician reported toxicity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected during treatment through 6 months after RT and compared by treatment technique. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to account for differences in prognostic factors between IMRT and 3D-CRT patients.
Results: Compared with 3D-CRT patients, IMRT patients had significantly larger PTVs (median 386 cc vs 292 cc; P < .0001) and were more likely to have Stage IIIB disease (34.3% vs 23.0%; P < .0001). After adjustment using IPTW, treatment with IMRT compared with 3D-CRT reduced high dose to the lung (mean V30 Gy 17.9% vs 19.2%; P = .027) and heart (proportion with V40 Gy ≥ 20% 6.4% vs 15.3%; P < .0001). In logistic regression models using IPTW, through 6 months of early follow-up, there were no significant differences between 3D-CRT and IMRT in rates of grade 2+ acute esophagitis (odds ratio [OR] = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.73,1.42; P = .91) and grade 2+ early pneumonitis (OR = 1.62; 95% CI, 0.89, 2.96; P = .11) or in likelihood of a clinically significant decline in PROs.
Conclusions: With late follow-up ongoing, this study supports the continued preferential use of IMRT over 3D-CRT for LA-NSCLC treatment due to improvements in heart and lung doses.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics (IJROBP), known in the field as the Red Journal, publishes original laboratory and clinical investigations related to radiation oncology, radiation biology, medical physics, and both education and health policy as it relates to the field.
This journal has a particular interest in original contributions of the following types: prospective clinical trials, outcomes research, and large database interrogation. In addition, it seeks reports of high-impact innovations in single or combined modality treatment, tumor sensitization, normal tissue protection (including both precision avoidance and pharmacologic means), brachytherapy, particle irradiation, and cancer imaging. Technical advances related to dosimetry and conformal radiation treatment planning are of interest, as are basic science studies investigating tumor physiology and the molecular biology underlying cancer and normal tissue radiation response.