Open Access

Exceptionally high incidence of symptomatic grade 2–5 radiation pneumonitis after stereotactic radiation therapy for lung tumors

  • Hideomi Yamashita1Email author,
  • Keiichi Nakagawa1,
  • Naoki Nakamura1,
  • Hiroki Koyanagi1,
  • Masao Tago1,
  • Hiroshi Igaki1,
  • Kenshiro Shiraishi1,
  • Nakashi Sasano1 and
  • Kuni Ohtomo1
Radiation Oncology20072:21

DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-2-21

Received: 17 April 2007

Accepted: 07 June 2007

Published: 07 June 2007

Abstract

Background

To determine the usefulness of dose volume histogram (DVH) factors for predicting the occurrence of radiation pneumonitis (RP) after application of stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) for lung tumors, DVH factors were measured before irradiation.

Methods

From May 2004 to April 2006, 25 patients were treated with SRT at the University of Tokyo Hospital. Eighteen patients had primary lung cancer and seven had metastatic lung cancer. SRT was given in 6–7 fields with an isocenter dose of 48 Gy in four fractions over 5–8 days by linear accelerator.

Results

Seven of the 25 patients suffered from RP of symptomatic grade 2–5 according to the NCI-CTC version 3.0. The overall incidence rate of RP grade2 or more was 29% at 18 months after completing SRT and three patients died from RP. RP occurred at significantly increased frequencies in patients with higher conformity index (CI) (p = 0.0394). Mean lung dose (MLD) showed a significant correlation with V5–V20 (irradiated lung volume) (p < 0.001) but showed no correlation with CI. RP did not statistically correlate with MLD. MLD had the strongest correlation with V5.

Conclusion

Even in SRT, when large volumes of lung parenchyma are irradiated to such high doses as the minimum dose within planning target volume, the incidence of lung toxicity can become high.

1. Background

Since 1990, stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) has been widely available for the treatment of intracranial lesions. Recently, the use of SRT has gradually been expanded to include the treatment of extra-cranial lesions. In particular, SRT has been demonstrated as a safe and effective modality in the treatment of primary and metastatic lung tumors [1]. Initial clinical results were favorable, and local control rates around 90% have been reported [19]. Since May 2004, we have employed SRT for body trunk tumors using a simple body cast system at the University of Tokyo Hospital.

Regarding normal tissue, the use of a single dose rather than a conventional fractionated dose may increase the risk of complications. However, few cases with severe toxicity have been reported [10].

A few patients undergoing high-dose SRT suffered from RP, which was treated by administration of steroids. The percentage of total lung volume receiving greater than or equal to 20 Gy (V20) was reported to be a useful factor for RP in conventional fractions [11]. The useful dose volume histogram (DVH) factors were examined for predicting the occurrence of RP after SRT for lung tumors.

2. Methods

2.1. Patients and tumor characteristics

From May 2004 to April 2006, 25 patients were treated with SRT using a stereotactic body cast system using a custom bed and low temperature thermoplastic material RAYCAST® (ORFIT Industries, Wijnegem, Belgium) at the University of Tokyo Hospital. All patients enrolled in this study satisfied the following eligibility criteria: 1) solitary or double lung tumors; 2) tumor diameter < 40 mm; 3) no evidence of regional lymph node metastasis; 4) Karnofsky performance status scale 80% ; and 5) tumor not located adjacent to major bronchus, esophagus, spinal cord, or great vessels. Of the 25 patients, 16 had primary lung cancer, seven had metastatic lung cancer, and two had recurrent lung cancer. Ten patients were inoperable because of coexisting disease and one refused surgery. The primary lung cancers were staged as T1N0M0 in 15 and T2N0M0 in one. The primary sites of the metastases were the rectum, kidney, and ampulla of Vater in one each. A complete history was taken from all patients, and each received a physical examination, blood test, chest computed tomography (CT) scan, and whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) scan using FDG before treatment. Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Details of patient characteristics

No.

Age

Sex

Primary site

Subject

Histology of target lesion

Chronic Lung Disorder

Inoperable reason

K-PS (%)

s KL (U/ml)

s SP-D (ng/ml)

VC (L)

FEV1.0 (L)

1

75

M

lung

primary

Adenoca

No

reject

90

wnl

wnl

4.07

2.81

2

83

M

lung

primary

Unknown

No

TAA/IHD

90

wnl

wnl

NA

NA

3

50

F

rectum

metastasis

Adenoca

post lobectomy

rectal ca.

90

wnl

wnl

3.40

2.66

4

77

M

lung

recurrence

SCLC

emphysema

SCLC-ED

90

wnl

wnl

NA

NA

5

75

M

lung

primary

Adenoca

No

nephrotic syndrome

80

wnl

wnl

NA

NA

6

60

M

lung

metastasis

Adenoca

post lobectomy

metastasis

90

743

wnl

2.61

0.59

7

79

M

lung

primary

SqCC

emphysema

colon ca./prostate ca.

90

wnl

wnl

1.75

1.26

8

79

M

ampulla of Vater

metastasis

Unknown

No

metastasis

80

wnl

wnl

NA

NA

9

69

M

lung

recurrence

Aenoca

post partial resection

recurrence

90

wnl

wnl

NA

NA

10

84

M

lung

primary

SqCC

No

TAA

70

wnl

wnl

1.74

0.85

11

81

M

lung

primary

Adenoca

No

M valve replacement

80

wnl

wnl

3.19

2.30

12

82

M

lung

primary

SqCC

No

prostate ca.

80

wn

wn

2.50

1.75

13

72

M

lung

metastasis

SqCC

No

metastasis

80

950

NA

2.76

2.13

14

80

M

lung

primary

Unknown

emphysema

HCC/colon ca.

80

NA

NA

NA

NA

15

80

M

kidney

metastasis

Unknown

No

Renal cell carcinoma

80

529

wnl

NA

NA

16

60

M

lung

metastasis

Carcinoma

IP

metastasis

80

852

NA

4.01

3.24

17

77

M

lung

primary

NSCLC

IP

IP

80

1590

NA

3.05

1.59

18

68

M

lung

primary

Adenoca

COPD

COPD

70

NA

NA

NA

NA

19

79

M

lung

primary

SqCC

emphysema

AAA

90

520

NA

NA

NA

20

64

F

lung

primary

Adenoca

No

CRF/IHD

90

wnl

wnl

2.04

1.56

21

76

F

lung

primary

SCLC

No

bladder ca./breast ca.

90

wnl

wnl

2.17

1.59

22

77

M

lung

primary

SqCC

No

diabetic nephropathy

80

wnl

wnl

NA

NA

23

78

M

lung

primary

NSCLC

IP

IP

80

wnl

127

NA

NA

24

62

M

colon

metastasis

Unknown

No

colon ca.

90

wnl

wnl

3.69

2.87

25

78

F

lung

primary

Carcinoma

IP/post lobectomy

post lobectomy

90

wnl

wnl

1.54

0.99

         

(0–500)

(0–110)

  

AAA: abdominal aortic aneurysm, Adenoca: adenocarcinoma, ca.: cancer, COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disea

ED: extended disease, FEV: forced expiratory volume, HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma, IHD: ischemic heart disease, IP?

K-PS: karnofsky performance status scale, M valve: mitral valve, NA: not available, s: serum, TAA: thoracic aortic ane

RP: radiation pneumonitis, SCLC:small cell lung cancer, SP-D: surfactant protein-D, SqCC: squamous cell carcinoma,

In our clinical cases, five could not be histologically confirmed because the patients could not tolerate CT-guided biopsy and transbronchoscopic lung biopsy (TBLB). In these patients, the tumor diagnosis was confirmed clinically by a growing tumor on repeated CT scans and by exclusion of another primary tumor by clinical staging. None of the patients received concurrent chemotherapy with SRT. Additionally, no chemotherapy, which might affect the RP rates, was given prior to or immediately after SRT (until two months).

2.2. Planning procedure and treatment

The patient was positioned in a supine position on a custom bed. A body cast was made to broadly cover the chest to the abdomen during shallow respiration, and attached rigidly to the sidewall of the base plate.

The CT slice thickness and pitch were 1 mm each in the area of the tumor, and 5 mm each in the other areas. Each CT slice was scanned with an acquisition time of four seconds to include the whole phase of one respiratory cycle. A series of CT images, therefore, included the tumor and its respiratory motion. The axial CT images were transferred to a 3-dimension RT treatment-planning machine (Pinnacle3, New Version 7.4i, Philips). Treatment planning was performed using the 3D RTP machine. The target volume corresponded to the internal target volume (ITV) in Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) 0403 phase II protocol [12]. The CT images already included the internal motion because long scan time (four seconds) CT under free breathing (what is called, "slow" CT scan) was used [13, 14]. Spicula formation and pleural indentation were included within the ITV. The setup margin (SM) between ITV and the planning target volume (PTV) was 5 mm in all directions. Additionally, there was additional 5 mm leaf margin to PTV, according to JCOG0403 protocol, in order to make the dose distribution within the PTV more homogeneous. Two to 4 multi-leaf-collimator (MLC)-shaped non-coplanar static ports of 6-MV X-rays were selected to decrease mean lung dose (MLD), V20, and V15 to below 18.0 Gy, 20%, and 25%, respectively, according to JCOG0403 protocol, although such numbers as V20 < 20% and V15 < 25% were valid for fractionation doses of about 2 Gy. We used no pairs of parallel opposing fields. The target reference point dose was defined at the isocenter of the beam. The collapsed cone (CC) convolution method was used as the dose calculation, in which the range of Compton electrons was better taken into account. In short, the convolution describes radiation interactions including charged particle transport, and calculates dose derived from CT density and patient set up information. The collapsed cone convolution method uses an analytical kernel represented by a set of cones, the energy deposited in which is collapsed onto a line (hence the name). The method is used to reduce computation time. In practice, the method utilizes a lattice of rays, such that each voxel is crossed by one ray corresponding to each cone axis. The primary beams were calculated heterogeneously and the scatter beams homogeneously as dose computation parameters. SRT was given with a central dose of 48 Gy in four fractions over 5–8 days in 6–7 fields by linear accelerator (SRL6000, Mitsubishi Electric Co., Tokyo) excluding two cases. Two patients (case no. 14 and 19) received 48 Gy in more than 4 fractionations (6 and 8 fractionations, respectively) (Table 2) since the tumor located in the hilar (central) region. As to the peripheral dose of the PTV, we checked that 95% PTV volumes coverage dose (D95) was over 90% of the central dose. CT verification of the target isocenter was performed to ensure the correct target position and sufficient reproducibility of suppressing breathing mobility before each treatment session.
Table 2

DVH characteristics in treatment planning.

No.

Tumor location

Isocenter Dose

BED10 (Gy)

Beam

Co-pulanar

Collimators (mm)

Field size (mm2)

V20 (%)

V40 (%)

V45 (%)

MLD (cGy)

D95 (cGy)

HI (%)

CI (%)

1

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

67 × 74

4958

5.0

2.0

1.0

206

4408

126

171

2

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

40 × 61

2440

5.0

2.0

1.0

488

4547

128

219

3

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

30 × 31

930

1.0

0.5

0.3

172

4462

120

202

4

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

60 × 46

2760

7.0

3.0

2.0

445

4325

128

147

5

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

48 × 63

3024

3.0

2.0

1.0

298

4443

117

157

6

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

67 × 67

4489

8.0

3.0

1.0

406

4435

123

197

7

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

49 × 57

2793

8.0

2.0

1.0

510

4432

118

187

8

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

45 × 51

2295

3.0

1.0

0.5

259

4468

125

182

9

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

55 × 60

3300

7.0

2.0

1.0

404

4515

118

168

10

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

59 × 68

4012

9.0

2.0

1.0

573

4511

122

170

11

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

69 × 68

4692

7.0

2.9

2.0

404

4380

126

204

12

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

7

2

79 × 97

7663

9.0

6.1

5.2

579

4355

134

169

13

rt perihilar/central

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

51 × 51

2601

7.0

2.7

1.9

585

4633

112

322

 

lt perihilar/central

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

49 × 57

2793

6.0

2.6

1.9

353

4629

110

257

14

perihilar/central

48Gy/8f

76.8

6

2

45 × 63

2835

7.0

1.0

0.5

568

4557

124

184

15

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

40 × 42

1680

5.0

2.0

1.0

313

4617

109

282

16

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

70 × 54

3780

10.0

5.0

3.0

791

4500

126

173

17

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

48 × 62

2976

6.0

1.0

0.5

426

4405

121

310

18

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

55 × 53

2915

4.0

1.0

0.5

291

4780

115

148

19

perihilar/central

48Gy/6f

86.4

6

2

59 × 59

3481

11.0

3.0

1.0

541

4835

139

170

20

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

7

4

49 × 46

2254

11.0

1.0

0.5

321

4851

112

164

21

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

50 × 56

2800

6.0

1.0

0.5

426

4602

118

192

22

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

55 × 57

3135

7.0

2.0

1.0

440

4890

119

175

23

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

7

4

60 × 58

3480

8.0

2.0

1.0

422

4585

112

130

24

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

35 × 34

1190

2.0

0

0

230

4468

117

173

25

peripheral

48Gy/4f

105.6

6

2

32 × 40

1280

4.0

0.5

0

353

4591

107

153

BED: biologically effective doses, CI: conformity index, f: fractions, HI: homogeneity index, MLD: mean lung dose, Vx: irradiated lung volume more than × Gy

2.3. Evaluation of clinical outcome

After completing SRT, chest x-ray films and serial chest CT scans were checked for all cases to evaluate treatment outcomes at 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months after completion. Routine blood test results were also examined in all cases at the same time. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and serum Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) were also collected at the same time as a serum marker of RP. The local tumor response was evaluated using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group [15]. Tumor response was assessed by follow-up chest radiography and CT scan. In accordance with WHO criteria, tumor response was defined as complete if all abnormalities that were anatomically related to the tumor disappeared after treatment, and defined as partial if the maximum size of these abnormalities decreased by 50%. Toxicities were evaluated using the National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) version 3.0. The toxicity data was collected retrospectively from the patient files. The following grading system was assigned to the RP: Grade 1, asymptomatic (radiographic findings only); Grade 2, symptomatic and not interfering with activities of daily living (ADL); Grade 3, symptomatic and interfering with ADL or O2 indicated; Grade 4, life-threatening (ventilatory support indicated), and Grade 5, death.

Maximum dose, minimum dose, D95, field size, and homogeneity index (HI) were evaluated (Table 2). HI was defined as the ratio of maximum dose to minimum dose. In our institution, HI must be below 1.40 in order to keep the dose within the PTV more homogeneous. In analyzing the dose to the lung, the V5-V20, MLD, and conformity index (CI) were evaluated (Table 2). V5-V50 and MLD was calculated for both lungs. The lung volume minus the PTV (PTV excluded) was used as the volume of lung parenchyma. In this study, CI was defined as the ratio of treated volume (TV) (the definition of TV was the volume covered by minimum dose within PTV) to PTV (i.e. CI = TV/PTV) according to JCOG0403 protocol, although this concept might be old and be used hardly. This definition of the CI is the opposite comparing with the CI defined by Knoos et al. (CI = PTV/TV) [16]. The higher the CI values obtained indicated that the areas irradiated were less conformal. Three patients had lesions located in the hilar/central tumor region according to Timmerman et al. [10].

2.4. Statistical analysis

CI and MLD between RP positive and negative were compared using an unpaired multiple t-tests. Statistical significant was defined as p value of <0.05.

3. Results

The patients ranged in age from 50 to 84 years with a median of 77 years (73.8 ± 8.6 years). Female to male ratio was 4:21. The volumes irradiated over 5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 20, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 Gy were designated as V5, V7, V10, V13, V15, V20, V30, V35, V40, V45, V50 respectively. Nine patients had chronic lung disorders, and four were in a postoperative state. Four patients had emphysema, three had interstitial pneumonia (IP), and one had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The length of follow-up ranged from 10 to 28 months with a median of 17 months (16.1 ± 7.1 months). During the follow-up period, only two tumors showed local regrowth in the meaning of local control (Table 3). The overall radiation treatment-time was five or 6 days in all cases excluding a single patient and the single patient was 8 days. The absolute volumes for every patient: ITV, PTV, the volume enclosed by the 48Gy total-isodose, the 24Gy-isodose-volume were shown in Table 4.
Table 3

Treatment results and RP grading

No.

Follow up (Months)

Dead or alive (cause of death)

Local control

Control out of field

RP grading

1

16

dead (primary)

PD

PD

G0

2

19

dead (aging)

PR

control

G0

3

20

alive

PR

PD

G1

4

19

alive

PR

control

G1

5

19

alive

CR

control

G1

6

16

alive

PD

PD

G1

7

15

alive

CR

control

G1

8

10

dead (primary)

PR

control

G0

9

14

alive

CR

control

G0

10

4

dead (aging)

PR

control

G0

11

10

alive

PR

control

G2 (2Mo)

12

11

alive

PR

control

G1

13

4

dead (RP)

CR

control

G5 (3Mo)

14

11

alive

CR

control

G2 (5Mo)

15

10

alive

PR

control

G1

16

7

dead (RP)

CR

PD

G5 (6Mo)

17

9

alive

CR

control

G3 (6Mo)

18

9

alive

CR

control

G4 (9Mo)

19

9

alive

PR

control

G1

20

8

dead (primary)

CR

control

G1

21

8

alive

CR

control

G0

22

6

dead (RP)

CR

control

G5 (5Mo)

23

7

alive

PR

control

G1

24

3

alive

PR

control

G0

25

2

alive

NE

NE

G0

CR: complete response, NE: not evaluate, PD: progressive disease, PR: partial response, RP: radiation pneumonitis, SD: stable disease

Table 4

The absolute volumes for every patient: ITV, PTV, the volume enclosed by the 48Gy total-isodose, the 24Gy-isodose-volume

Case

ITV (cm3)

PTV (cm3)

V48 (cm3)

V24 (cm3)

1

13.9

66.8

54.4

284

2

10.1

40.1

25.9

108

3

1.0

7.5

0.0

30

4

9.6

34.9

6.7

141

5

11.4

45.2

0.3

85

6

34.2

85.1

22.8

166

7

17.2

51.0

3.0

135

8

9.7

33.7

10.5

57

9

16.4

54.4

8.1

175

10

30.8

81.9

25.3

258

11

30.0

79.1

37.5

212

12

126.9

239.4

98.4

263

13 rt

5.0

20.5

16.5

123

lt

6.4

26.4

15.6

114

14

15.5

47.5

20.1

147

15

5.0

10.2

3.4

109

16

49.9

120.9

46.7

303

17

5.1

29.4

6.4

128

18

13.2

42.5

0.6

247

19

36.2

85.0

6.8

238

20

8.4

29.0

2.1

81

21

9.0

29.6

1.7

103

22

18.5

56.5

1.7

119

23

17.3

50.8

1.8

153

24

1.8

10.6

2.6

39

25

1.7

10.5

0.4

36

Seven out of the 25 patients suffered from RP of grade 2 or more in the NCI-CTC version 3.0. All patients with RP had a cough, continuous fevers, severe dyspnea, and showed infiltrative changes in both irradiated and non-irradiated areas on chest CT (Figures 1 and 2). Three patients out of 25 treated with SRT died from a fatal RP. There were seven patients: one had RP at 2 months, one at 3 months, one at 9 months, two at 5 months, and two at 6 months. In all of the seven patients, pneumonitis spread out beyond the PTV. The overall incidence rate of RP grade 2 or more determined by the Kaplan-Meier method was 29.2% at 18 months after completing SRT (Figure 3). Various clinical as well as therapeutic factors were analyzed for their possible relationships to the incidence of RP (Table 2). There were no significant relations between the incidence of RP and with or without co-morbidity lung disease (χ2 test: p = 0.9400). Only two cases (22%) developed RP out of nine patients with co-morbidity lung disease. In all of the 25 patients, LDH levels remained normal during the follow-up period. Three of the seven patients with RP had high values of serum KL-6 before SRT, and the other four had normal serum KL-6 level. Additionally, RP had been observed in three patients who had high levels of serum KL-6 before SRT.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1748-717X-2-21/MediaObjects/13014_2007_Article_69_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Computed tomography (CT) image of radiation pneumonitis (RP) (patient No. 11).

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1748-717X-2-21/MediaObjects/13014_2007_Article_69_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

CT image of RP (patient No. 13).

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1748-717X-2-21/MediaObjects/13014_2007_Article_69_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Kaplan-Meier plot of time from treatment until RP grade2 to 5. There were seven patients: one had RP at 2 months, one at 3 months, one at 9 months, two at 5 months, and two at 6 months.

The high value of CI showed a significant correlation with the occurrence of RP, while MLD (Figure 4), field size, PTV volume, and V5, V7, V10, V13, and V15 (p value according to unpaired t-test was 0.1966, 0.1658, 0.2351, 0.3831, and 0.3963, respectively) showed no correlations with RP. Additionally, V20, V30, V35, V40, V45, and V50 showed no significant correlations with the incidence of RP, either (p value was 0.6768, 0.8369, 0.8318, 0.8044, 0.7544, and 0.9218, respectively) (Figure 5). Even when the volumes V5-V50 were given in absolute units (cm3) for the lung parenchyma (PTV excluded), there were no significant correlations between V5–V50 and the incidence of RP (Table 5). The patients with RP had a mean CI of 222–66%, while the mean for patients without RP was 180–33% (p = 0.0394) (Figure 6). There was no significant correlation between both the ITV and PTV volume and the incidence of RP (p = 0.7415 and p = 0.7675, respectively).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1748-717X-2-21/MediaObjects/13014_2007_Article_69_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Figure 4

The correlation comparing the occurrence of RP grade 2 or more with MLD.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1748-717X-2-21/MediaObjects/13014_2007_Article_69_Fig5_HTML.jpg
Figure 5

The correlation comparing the occurrence of RP grade 2 or more with V20-V50.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1748-717X-2-21/MediaObjects/13014_2007_Article_69_Fig6_HTML.jpg
Figure 6

The correlation comparing the occurrence of RP grade 2 or more with CI.

Table 5

The correlation comparing the occurrence of RP with V5-V50

  

V5

V7

V10

V13

V15

V20

V30

V35

V40

V45

V50

p

value RP

0.2500

0.2422

0.3208

0.2742

0.2717

0.4063

0.5858

0.7557

0.8220

0.9307

0.4780

 

with

744 ± 134

631 ± 117

495 ± 95

368 ± 70

307 ± 56

210 ± 39

124 ± 24

96 ± 18

75 ± 15

48 ± 11

1 ± 1

 

without

604 ± 52

504 ± 47

400 ± 43

290 ± 32

244 ± 26

174 ± 20

108 ± 14

88 ± 13

70 ± 11

47 ± 9

4 ± 2

mean ± SD (cm3)

CI showed no significant correlations with V5-V20 and MLD. CI correlated significantly with the ITV (both t-test and χ2 test: p < 0.0001).

No patient had NCI-CTC Grade 3 or 4 toxicities such as fatigue, dermatitis associated with radiation, dysphagia, esophagitis, and pain in chest wall.

4. Discussion

Although extracranial stereotactic irradiation is an emerging treatment modality utilized by an increasing number of institutions in this field [14], only a few institutions have published their clinical results. SRT is accepted as a treatment method in medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer or in patients who refused surgery. Promising results have been reported for this treatment method, with high local control rates and low incidence of complications [7, 1721]. A multi-institutional prospective trial (JCOG 0403) is currently in progress in Japan. This paper describes the experience of treating 25 patients with small (< 4 cm) lung tumors with four fractions of 12Gy. An unusually high rate of severe (grade 3 or more) RP (20%) and mortality (12%) was noticed and we are searching for reasons to explain these results, because we notice that these rates are far beyond other reported series. In this study, since the clinical data is collected retrospectively, the data is biased and there is a lack of information. Especially the lung function data of 11 patients (44%) are missing.

In our study, some of the patients started to suffer from "pneumonitis" almost 12 months after radiotherapy. These patients suffered from lung fibrosis plus pneumonia. RP is generally seen within 3 months of radiation and, in contrast, radiation fibrosis, which is thought to represent scar/fibrotic lung tissue, is usually a "late effect" seen >3 months after radiation. These may be difficult to distinguish from each other. RP is a sub-acute (weeks to months from treatment) inflammation of the end bronchioles and alveoli. The clinical picture may be very similar to acute bacterial pneumonia with fatigue, fever, shortness of breath, non-productive cough, and a pulmonary infiltrate on chest x-ray. The infiltrate on chest x-ray should include the area treated to high dose, but may extend outside of these regions. The infiltrates may be characteristically "geometric" corresponding to the radiation portal, but may also be ill defined.

CI may be a useful DVH factor for predicting the occurrence of RP after SRT for lung tumors. Although the CI was first proposed in 1993 by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and described in Report 62 of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), it has not been included in routine practice [16, 2225]. The CI is a measure of how well the volume of a radiosurgical dose distribution conforms to the size and shape of a target volume, and is a complementary tool for scoring a given plan or for evaluating different treatment plans for the same patient. The radiation CI gives a consistent method for quantifying the degree of conformity based on iso-dose surfaces and volumes. Care during interpretation of radiation CI must always be taken, since small changes in the minimum dose can dramatically change the treated volume [16]. With the growth of conformal radiotherapy, the CI may play an important role in the future. However, this role has not yet been defined, probably because the value of conformal radiotherapy is just beginning to be demonstrated in terms of prevention of adverse effects and tumor control [2629]. In our study, there was a significant association between CI with RP rate (p = 0.0394). A higher CI is less conformal. Figure 6 appears to say that the CI should be less than 2.00 since the most patients (15/18 cases) without RP were covered. This is a reflection of the number of beams and the spreading out of the prescribed dose. It is recommended that efforts be directed to reduce CI (= TV/PTV) in treatment planning. For that purpose, the minimum irradiation dose within PTV should be raised to reduce the TV. CI is generally used as a criterion to evaluate treatment plan. It has no relation with the volume of the irradiated lung. From a radiotherapeutic/-biological point of view, it is not likely that CI has a true predictive value for development of RP. CI is related to volume receiving very high radiation dose (90 % of prescribed dose). Lung tissue is vulnerable even to low dose. Therefore parameters related to volumes receiving low doses (i.e. V10 or MLD) are much more likely to correlate with toxicity. As the cases numbers were small, the co-relationship of CI and PR possibly may be coincident.

In our study, statistical analysis did not show significant association between MLD and RP rate, which were different from results of lung toxicity from conventional fractionation [11, 30, 31]. In our study, CI had no significant correlation with MLD. MLD was not a useful factor for predicting the occurrence of RP. V5 rather than V7, V10, V13, V15, and V20 had the strongest correlation with MLD, although in our study neither V5 nor MLD was a useful factor for predicting RP.

In a similar study by Paludan et al. [32] reporting dose-volume related parameters in a similar number of patients (N = 28), no relationship between DVH parameters and changes in dyspnea was found. They found that deterioration of lung function was more likely related to the patient co-morbidity (COPD) than to dose-volume related parameters. However, in the present analysis, there were no significant relations between the incidence of RP and with or without co-morbidity lung diseases.

The levels of KL-6 [17, 3335] and LDH are reported to be sensitive markers of RP, but in our study, both markers were not very sensitive. A few patients undergoing single high-dose SRT suffered from radiation pneumonitis, which was treated by administration of steroids. It is known that intense radiation changes and fibrosis without symptoms (Grade 1) will be found in the majority of patients after hypo-fractionated SRT. In addition, pneumonias develop regularly in these medically inoperable patients, and the combination of these can easily mislead to a diagnosis of RP. Misclassification in such a small number of patients will lead to a huge overestimation of the real incidence. In particular the fact that some of the patients already suffered from IP may have obscured the occurrence of RP. E.g. Figure 2 is at "best" a patient suffering from bronchiolitis obliterans with organizing pneumonia (BOOP), with the bilateral infiltrates.

It is debatable whether V20 can be applied to SRT in the same way as it is applied to conventional radiotherapy [11, 36]. Our >20 Gy irradiated volume of the whole lung was 1.0–9.0% (average 4.83%), which was markedly smaller than that reported by Graham et al. [11]. In a previous study using whole-body irradiation, Wara et al. [37] demonstrated that eight Gy is the tolerance dose in the lung in single fractional irradiation. V20 was defined for standard fractionation. Biologically equivalent dose (BED) would be about 6.7 Gy (α/β = 3) with 12 Gy per fractionation. Thus, V5 and V7 would be important factor.

Many studies [7, 1820, 38] have reported no patients who showed RP of Grade 3 or more in lung SRT. Additionally, only low incident rate of grade 2 RP (2.4% [20], 3% [21], 5.4% [18], and 7.2% [39]) was reported. Hara et al. [17] at the International Medical Center of Japan reported that 3 of the 16 patients (19%) experienced RP of Grade 3 severity with SRT of 20–35 Gy in a single fraction. Belderbos et al. [39] suggested additional reductions of the security margins for PTV definition and introduction of inhomogeneous dose distributions within the PTV. Compared with these reports, the occurrence rate of RP was much higher in our institution. As for its cause, we submit that many patients in our study had poor respiratory function, many patients were judged as inoperable because of IP, and some cases had recurrent lung tumors after surgery. If the relative gantry angles and the number of beams were arranged more properly, the CI ratio would be made lower, since their factors probably are directly related to the CI. Additionally it is essential to use small fields. We set the leaves at 5 mm outside the PTV in order to make the dose distribution within the PTV more homogeneous. This may be the reason why we got so unacceptably high CI. We might have had to set the leaves at the margin of the PTV according to the ongoing Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocols. There must be something wrong with either the way targets are irradiated. Clinical target volume including spicula formation (= ITV) + 5 mm ITV-PTV margin + 5 mm PTV-leaf margins might have been unnecessary large margins. However, our PTV (53.4 ± 47.0 cm3, median: 43.8 cm3) was almost equal to the PTV reported by Fritz et al. [38] (median: 45.0 cm3) without any symptomatic RP. It appears that in this study large volumes of lung parenchyma were irradiated to such high doses as the minimum dose within planning target volume (= high the TV and high CI value), which may explain the high incidence of lung toxicity.

Timmerman et al. [10] recently published a paper reporting of a high incidence of RP after SRT. They found an unacceptable high rate, if the tumor was located more centrally. In our study, this tendency was not seen (only one out of patients with severe RP had a central tumor).

Hope et al. [40] found that RP is correlated to the volume of the high dose region. These data (the value of CI and the incidence of RP had the strongest correlation) may support another hypothesis that RP probably has associations with high dose regions rather than with low dose regions (V5-V20). However, in our study, V30, V35, V40, V45, and V50 showed no significant correlations with the incidence of RP, either. It may be no wonder that the CI does not show a relation with V30-V50, because the V30-V50 depends on the absolute volume of the PTV, not on the CI. Only the treatment technique will show such correlation.

The use of multiple non-coplanar static ports achieved homogeneous target dose distributions and avoided high doses to normal tissues, despite the limitation of the beam arrangement from the use of the body frame and couch structure.

5. Conclusion

In our institution, exceptionally high incidence of Grade 3–5 radiation pneumonitis after SRT for lung tumors was seen. Even in SRT, when large volumes of lung parenchyma are irradiated to such high doses as the minimum dose within planning target volume, the incidence of lung toxicity can become high. Further observations of the radiation changes in the lung after SRT are needed.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Radiology, University of Tokyo Hospital

References

  1. Nagata Y, Negoro Y, Aoki T, Mizowaki T, Takayama K, Kokubo M, Araki N, Mitsumori M, Sasai K, Shibamoto Y, Koga S, Yano S, Hiraoka M: Clinical outcomes of 3D conformal hypofractionated single high-dose radiotherapy for one or two lung tumors using a stereotactic body frame. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 52: 1041-1046. 10.1016/S0360-3016(01)02731-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Uematsu M, Shioda A, Tahara K, Fukui T, Yamamoto F, Tsumatori G, Ozeki Y, Aoki T, Watanabe M, Kusano S: Focal, high dose, and fractionated modified stereotactic radiation therapy for lung carcinoma patients a preliminary experience. Cancer 1998, 82: 1062-1070. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980315)82:6<1062::AID-CNCR8>3.0.CO;2-GView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Nakagawa K, Aoki Y, Tago M, Terahara A, Ohtomo K: Megavoltage CT-assisted stereotactic radiosurgery for thoracic tumors original research in the treatment of thoracic neoplasms. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000, 48: 449-457. 10.1016/S0360-3016(00)00617-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Wulf J, Hadinger U, Oppitz U, Thiele W, Ness-Dourdoumas R, Flentje M: Stereotactic radiotherapy of targets in the lung and liver. Strahlenther Onkol 2001, 177: 645-655. 10.1007/PL00002379View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hara R, Itami J, Kondo T, Aruga T, Abe Y, Ito M, Fuse M, Shinohara D, Nagaoka T, Kobiki T: Stereotactic single high dose irradiation of lung tumors under respiratory gating. Radiother Oncol 2002, 63: 159-163. 10.1016/S0167-8140(02)00063-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Onimaru R, Shirato H, Shimizu S, Kitamura K, Xu B, Fukumoto S, Chang TC, Fujita K, Oita M, Miyasaka K, Nishimura M, Dosaka-Akita H: Tolerance of organs at risk in small-volume, hypofractionated, image-guided radiotherapy for primary and metastatic lung cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 56: 126-135. 10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00095-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hof H, Herfarth KK, Munter M, Hoess A, Motsch J, Wannenmacher M, Debus JJ: Stereotactic single-dose radiotherapy of stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 56: 335-341. 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)04504-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Whyte RI, Crownover R, Murphy MJ, Martin DP, Rice TW, DeCamp MM Jr, Rodebaugh R, Weinhous MS, Le QT: Stereotactic radiosurgery for lung tumors preliminary report of a phase I trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2003, 75: 1097-1101. 10.1016/S0003-4975(02)04681-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Takai Y, Mituya M, Nemoto K, Ogawa Y, Kakuto Y, Matusita H, Takeda K, Takahashi C, Yamada S: [Simple method of stereotactic radiotherapy without stereotactic body frame for extracranial tumors]. Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 2001, 61: 403-407.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Timmerman R, McGarry R, Yiannoutsos C, Papiez L, Tudor K, DeLuca J, Ewing M, Abdulrahman R, DesRosiers C, Williams M, Fletcher J: Excessive toxicity when treating central tumors in a phase II study of stereotactic body radiation therapy for medically inoperable early-stage lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24: 4833-4839. 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.5937View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham MV, Purdy JA, Emami B, Harms W, Bosch W, Lockett MA, Perez CA: Clinical dose-volume histogram analysis for pneumonitis after 3D treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999, 45: 323-329. 10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00183-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Matsuo Y, Takayama K, Nagata Y, Kunieda E, Tateoka K, Ishizuka N, Mizowaki T, Norihisa Y, Sakamoto M, Narita Y, Ishikura S, Hiraoka M: Interinstitutional variations in planning for stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 68: 416-425.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lagerwaard FJ, Van Sornsen de Koste JR, Nijssen-Visser MR, Schuchhard-Schipper RH, Oei SS, Munne A, Senan S: Multiple "slow" CT scans for incorporating lung tumor mobility in radiotherapy planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001, 51: 932-937. 10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01716-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. van Sornsen de Koste JR, Lagerwaard FJ, Schuchhard-Schipper RH, Nijssen-Visser MR, Voet PW, Oei SS, Senan S: Dosimetric consequences of tumor mobility in radiotherapy of stage I non-small cell lung cancer--an analysis of data generated using 'slow' CT scans. Radiother Oncol 2001, 61: 93-99. 10.1016/S0167-8140(01)00373-5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, Verweij J, Van Glabbeke M, van Oosterom AT, Christian MC, Gwyther SG: New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000, 92: 205-216. 10.1093/jnci/92.3.205View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Knoos T, Kristensen I, Nilsson P: Volumetric and dosimetric evaluation of radiation treatment plans: radiation conformity index. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998, 42: 1169-1176. 10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00239-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hara R, Itami J, Komiyama T, Katoh D, Kondo T: Serum levels of KL-6 for predicting the occurrence of radiation pneumonitis after stereotactic radiotherapy for lung tumors. Chest 2004, 125: 340-344. 10.1378/chest.125.1.340View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Takayama K, Nagata Y, Negoro Y, Mizowaki T, Sakamoto T, Sakamoto M, Aoki T, Yano S, Koga S, Hiraoka M: Treatment planning of stereotactic radiotherapy for solitary lung tumor. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 61: 1565-1571. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.12.066View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Song DY, Benedict SH, Cardinale RM, Chung TD, Chang MG, Schmidt-Ullrich RK: Stereotactic body radiation therapy of lung tumors: preliminary experience using normal tissue complication probability-based dose limits. Am J Clin Oncol 2005, 28: 591-596. 10.1097/01.coc.0000182428.56184.afView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Onishi H, Nagata Y, Shirato H, Gomi K, Karasawa K, Arimoto T, Hayakawa K, Takai Y, Kimura T, Takeda A: Stereotactic hypofractionated high-dose irradiation for stage I non-small cell lung carcinoma: Clinical outcomes in 273 cases of a Japanese multi-institutional study. ASCO 2004.,22(14S): (July 15 Supplement) abstract No: 7003Google Scholar
  21. Wulf J, Haedinger U, Oppitz U, Thiele W, Mueller G, Flentje M: Stereotactic radiotherapy for primary lung cancer and pulmonary metastases: a noninvasive treatment approach in medically inoperable patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004, 60: 186-196. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.02.060View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Anonymous: Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy (supplement to ICRU Report 50). In Report 62, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Washington, DC; 1999.Google Scholar
  23. Shaw E, Kline R, Gillin M, Souhami L, Hirschfeld A, Dinapoli R, Martin L: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group: Radiosurgery quality assurance guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993, 27: 1231-1239.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Feuvret L, Noel G, Mazeron JJ, Bey P: Conformity index: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 64: 333-342. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.09.028View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Paddick I: A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. Technical note. J Neurosurg 2000,93(Suppl 3):219-222.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Takayama K, Nagata Y, Negoro Y, Mizowaki T, Sakamoto T, Sakamoto M, Aoki T, Yano S, Koga S, Hiraoka M: Treatment planning of stereotactic radiotherapy for solitary lung tumor. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 61: 1565-1571. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.12.066View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Armstrong J, McGibney C: The impact of three-dimensional radiation on the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2000, 56: 157-167. 10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00207-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Dearnaley DP, Khoo VS, Norman AR, Meyer L, Nahum A, Tait D, Yarnold J, Horwich A: Comparison of radiation side-effects of conformal and conventional radiotherapy in prostate cancer: A randomised trial. Lancet 1999, 353: 267-272. 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05180-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee WR, Hanks GE, Hanlon AL, Schultheiss TE, Hunt MA: Lateral rectal shielding reduces late rectal morbidity following high dose three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: Further evidence for a significant dose effect. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996, 35: 251-257. 10.1016/0360-3016(96)00064-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Yorke ED, Jackson A, Rosenzweig KE, Merrick SA, Gabrys D, Venkatraman ES, Burman CM, Leibel SA, Ling CC: Dose-volume factors contributing to the incidence of radiation pneumonitis in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 54: 329-339. 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02929-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hernando ML, Marks LB, Bentel GC, Zhou SM, Hollis D, Das SK, Fan M, Munley MT, Shafman TD, Anscher MS, Lind PA: Radiation induced pulmonary toxicity: a dose-volume histogram analysis in 201 patients with lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001, 51: 650-659. 10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01685-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Paludan M, Traberg Hansen A, Petersen J, Grau C, Hoyer M: Aggravation of dyspnea in stage I non-small cell lung cancer patients following stereotactic body radiotherapy: Is there a dose-volume dependency? Acta Oncol 2006, 45: 818-822. 10.1080/02841860600915314View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kohno N, Hamada H, Fujioka S, Hiwada K, Yamakido M, Akiyama M: Circulating Antigen KL-6 and Lactate Dehydorogenase for Monitoring Irradiated Patients with Lung Cancer. Chest 1992, 102: 117-122.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kohno N, Kyoizumi S, Awaya Y, Fukuhara H, Yamakido M, Akiyama M: New serum indicator of interstitial pneumonitis activity: sialylated carbohydrate antigen KL-6. Chest 1989, 96: 68-73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Goto K, Kodama T, Sekine I, Kakinuma R, Kubota K, Hojo F, Matsumoto T, Ohmatsu H, Ikeda H, Ando M, Nishiwaki Y: Serum levels of KL-6 are useful biomarkers for severe radiation pneumonitis. Lung Cancer 2001, 34: 141-148. 10.1016/S0169-5002(01)00215-XView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kohno N, Kyoizumi S, Awaya Y, Fukuhara H, Yamakido M, Akiyama M: New serum indicator of interstitial pneumonitis activity: sialylated carbohydrate antigen KL-6. Chest 1989, 96: 68-73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wara WM, Phillips TL, Margolis LW, Smith V: Radiation pneumonitis: A new approach to the derivation of time-dose factors. Cancer 1973, 32: 547-552. View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Fritz P, Kraus HJ, Muhlnickel W, Hammer U, Dolken W, Engel-Riedel W, Chemaissani A, Stoelben E: Stereotactic, single-dose irradiation of stage I non-small cell lung cancer and lung metastases. Radiat Oncol 2006, 1: 30. 10.1186/1748-717X-1-30PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Belderbos JS, De Jaeger K, Heemsbergen WD, Seppenwoolde Y, Baas P, Boersma LJ, Lebesque JV: First results of a phase I/II dose escalation trial in non-small cell lung cancer using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2003, 66: 119-126. 10.1016/S0167-8140(02)00377-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hope AJ, Lindsay PE, El Naqa I, Alaly JR, Vicic M, Bradley JD, Deasy JO: Modeling radiation pneumonitis risk with clinical, dosimetric, and spatial parameters. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 65: 112-124. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.11.046View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Yamashita et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2007

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.