Radiation treatment parameters for re-irradiation of malignant glioma
Background and purpose Most patients with malignant glioma ultimately fail locally or loco-regionally after the first treatment, with re-irradiation being a reasonable treatment option. However, only limited data are presently available allowing for a precise selection of patients suitable for re-tr...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 2012-04, Vol.188 (4), p.328-333 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background and purpose
Most patients with malignant glioma ultimately fail locally or loco-regionally after the first treatment, with re-irradiation being a reasonable treatment option. However, only limited data are presently available allowing for a precise selection of patients suitable for re-treatment with regard to safety and efficacy.
Material and methods
Using the department database, 39 patients with a second course of radiation were identified. Doses to gross tumor volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV), and relevant organs at risk (OARs; brainstem, optic chiasm, optic nerves, brain) were retrospectively analyzed and correlated to outcome parameters. Relevant treatment parameters including D
max
, D
min
, D
mean
, and volume (ml) were obtained. Equivalent uniform dose (EUD) values were calculated for the tumor and OARs. To address the issue of radiation necrosis/leukoencephalopathy posttherapeutic MRI images were routinely examined every 3 months.
Results
Median follow-up was 147 days. The time interval between first and second irradiation was regularly greater than 6 months. Median EUDs to the OARs were 11.9 Gy (range 0.7–27.4 Gy) to the optic chiasm, 17.6 Gy (range 0.7–43.0 Gy) to the brainstem, 4.9/2.1 Gy (range 0.3–24.5 Gy) to the right/left optic nerve, and 29.4 Gy (range 25.2–32.5 Gy) to the brain. No correlation between treated volume and survival was observed. Cold spots and dose did not correlate with survival. Re-irradiated volumes were treated with on average lower doses if they were larger and vice versa.
Conclusion
In general, re-irradiation is a safe and feasible re-treatment option. No relevant toxicity was observed after re-irradiation in our patient cohort during follow-up. In this regard, this analysis provides baseline data for the selection of putative patients. EUD values are derived and may serve as reference for further studies, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) protocols. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0179-7158 1439-099X |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00066-011-0055-2 |