A Comparison of Isotoxic Dose-escalated Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer with Moderate Deep Inspiration Breath Hold, Mid-ventilation and Internal Target Volume Techniques

摘要

Aims: With interest in normal tissue sparing and dose-escalated radiotherapy in the treatment of inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, this study investigated the impact of motion-managed moderate deep inspiration breath hold (mDIBH) on normal tissue sparing and dose-escalation potential and compared this to planning with a four-dimensional motion-encompassing internal target volume or motion-compensating mid-ventilation approach. Materials and methods: Twenty-one patients underwent four-dimensional and mDIBH planning computed tomography scans. Internal and mid-ventilation target volumes were generated on the four-dimensional scan, with mDIBH target volumes generated on the mDIBH scan. Isotoxic target dose-escalation guidelines were used to generate six plans per patient: three with a target dose cap and three without. Target dose-escalation potential, normal tissue complication probability and differences in pre-specified dose-volume metrics were evaluated for the three motion-management techniques. Results: The mean total lung volume was significantly greater with mDIBH compared with four-dimensional scans. Lung dose (mean and V21 Gy) and mean heart dose were significantly reduced with mDIBH in comparison with four-dimensional-based approaches, and this translated to a significant reduction in heart and lung normal tissue complication probability with mDIBH. In 20/21 patients, the trial target prescription dose cap of 79.2 Gy was achievable with all motion management techniques. Conclusion: mDIBH aids lung and heart dose sparing in isotoxic dose-escalated radiotherapy compared with four-dimensional planning techniques. Given concerns about lung and cardiac toxicity, particularly in an era of consolidation immunotherapy, reduced normal tissue doses may be advantageous for treatment tolerance and outcome. Crown Copyright (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Royal College of Radiologists. All rights reserved.