SU-G-BRC-12: Isotoxic Dose Escalation for Advanced Lung Cancer: Comparison of Different Boosting Strategiesfor Patients with Recurrent Disease

Authors


Abstract

Purpose:

To determine the dose level and timing of the boost in locally advanced lung cancer patients with confirmed tumor recurrence by comparing different boosting strategies by an impact of dose escalation in improvement of the therapeutic ratio.

Methods:

We selected eighteen patients with advanced NSCLC and confirmed recurrence. For each patient, a base IMRT plan to 60 Gy prescribed to PTV was created. Then we compared three dose escalation strategies: a uniform escalation to the original PTV, an escalation to a PET-defined target planned sequentially and concurrently. The PET-defined targets were delineated by biologically-weighed regions on a pre-treatment 18F-FDG PET. The maximal achievable dose, without violating the OAR constraints, was identified for each boosting method. The EUD for the target, spinal cord, combined lung, and esophagus was compared for each plan.

Results:

The average prescribed dose was 70.4±13.9 Gy for the uniform boost, 88.5±15.9 Gy for the sequential boost and 89.1±16.5 Gy for concurrent boost. The size of the boost planning volume was 12.8% (range: 1.4 – 27.9%) of the PTV. The most prescription-limiting dose constraints was the V70 of the esophagus. The EUD within the target increased by 10.6 Gy for the uniform boost, by 31.4 Gy for the sequential boost and by 38.2 for the concurrent boost. The EUD for OARs increased by the following amounts: spinal cord, 3.1 Gy for uniform boost, 2.8 Gy for sequential boost, 5.8 Gy for concurrent boost; combined lung, 1.6 Gy for uniform, 1.1 Gy for sequential, 2.8 Gy for concurrent; esophagus, 4.2 Gy for uniform, 1.3 Gy for sequential, 5.6 Gy for concurrent.

Conclusion:

Dose escalation to a biologically-weighed gross tumor volume defined on a pre-treatment 18F-FDG PET may provide improved therapeutic ratio without breaching predefined OAR constraints. Sequential boost provides better sparing of OARs as compared with concurrent boost.

Ancillary