Evaluation of radiotherapy treatment plans in a randomized phase II trial comparing two schedules of twice-daily thoracic radiotherapy in limited stage small-cell lung cancer

Abstract

PurposeThere is limited clinical data for recommendations on how to deliver thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) concurrently with chemotherapy in limited stage (LS) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). We reviewed radiotherapy treatment plans in a randomized phase II trial comparing high-dose with standard-dose twice-daily TRT to assess treatment planning techniques, dose-volume data for target volumes and organs at risk (OARs), evaluate compliance with the protocol, associations with radiation-induced toxicity and whether an imbalance in treatment planning parameters might be a reason for the large survival benefit of the higher dose (median overall survival 43.6 vs. 22.6 months). Methods and Materials170 patients were to receive four courses of platinum/etoposide and randomized to receive twice-daily TRT of 60 Gy/40 fractions (fx) or 45 Gy/30 fx. TRT treatment plans for those who received one or more fx of TRT (n=166) were analyzed. ResultsThe most common treatment planning technique was 3DCRT (67%). The 75th percentile of the reported dose-volume parameters for the OARs were within the protocol-recommended limits for both groups. Mean doses to the esophagus of 25.5 Gy (IQR: 20.2-31.3) [60 Gy/40 fx] and 24.3 Gy (IQR: 20.3-27.5) [45 Gy/30 fx] were associated with 21% and 18% ≥ grade 3 acute esophagitis, respectively. In the 60 Gy/40 fx group, a mean dose to the lungs of 16.5 Gy (IQR: 15.8-16.9), V20Gy of 29.5% (IQR: 28.8-30.4), and V5Gy of 65.6% (IQR: 61.5-68.7) led to ≥ grade 3 pneumonitis in 4% of the patients. There was no ≥ grade 3 pneumonitis in the 45 Gy group. Treatment planning techniques, the percentage change in volumes between original and re-delineated OARs, PTV volumes, relative doses, and laterality were well balanced between the randomly assigned groups. ConclusionConsidering that the incidences of severe radiation-induced toxicities were within the range of other recent trials, the reported doses to the OARs appear to be safe. Treatment planning parameters were well balanced between the randomly assigned groups, supporting that the survival benefit of the twice-daily 60 Gy/ 40 fx TRT schedule was due to the higher dose.