• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.27-36
• /
• 1997

Purpose : This study was tried to evaluate the Potential benefits of concurrent chemoradiation therapy (low dose daily cisplatin combined with split course radiation therapy) compared with conventional radiation therapy alone in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. The end points of analyses were response rate. overall survival, survival without locoregional failure, survival without distant metastasis, prognostic factors affecting survival and treatment related toxicities. Materials and Methods : Between April 1992 and March 1994, 32 patients who had stage III non-small cell lung cancer were treated with concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Radiation therapy for 2 weeks (300 cGy given 10 times up to 3000 cGy) followed by a 3 weeks rest period and then radiation therapy for 2 more weeks (250 cGy given 10 times up to 2500 cGy) was combined with $6mg/m^2$ of cisplatin. Follow-up period ranged from 13 months to 48 months with median of 24 months. Historical control group consisted of 32 patients who had stage III non-small cell lung cancer were received conventionally fractionated (daily 170-200 cGy) radiation therapy alone. Total radiation dose ranged from 5580 cGy to 7000 cGy with median of 5940 cGy. Follow-up Period ranged from 36 months to 105 months with median of 62 months. Result : Complete reponse rate was higher in chemoradiation therapy (CRT) group than radiation therapy (RT) group (18.8% vs. 6.3%, CRT group showed lower in-field failure rate compared with RT group(25% vs. 47%. The overall survival rate had no significant differences in between CRT group and RT group (17.5% vs. 9.4% at 2 years). The survival without locoregional failure (16.5% vs. 5.3% at 2 years) and survival without distant metastasis (17% vs. 4.6% at 2 years) also had no significant differences. In subgroup analyses for Patients with good performance status (Karnofsky performance scale 80), CRT group showed significantly higher overall survival rate compared with RT group (62.5% vs. 15.6% at 2 years). The prognostic factors affecting survival rate were performance status and pathologic subtype (squamous cell cancer vs. nonsquamous cell cancer) in CRT group. In RT alone group, performance status and stage (IIIa vs IIIb) were identified as a Prognostic factors. RTOG/EORTC grade 2-3 nausea and vomiting(22% vs 6% and bone marrow toxicities (25% vs. 15.6% were significantly higher in CRT group compared with RT alone group. The incidence of RTOG/EORTC grade 3-4 pulmonary toxicity had no significant differences in between CRT group and RT group (16% vs. 6%. The incidence of WHO grade 3-4 pulmonary fibrosis also had no significant differences in both group (38% vs. 25%. In analyses for relationship of field size and Pulmonary toxicity, the Patients who treated with field size beyond 200cm2 had significantly higher rates of pulmonary toxicities. Conclusion : The CRT group showed significantly higher local control rate than RT group. There were no significant differences of survival rate in between two groups. The subgroup of patients who had good performance status showed higher overall survival rate in CRT group than RT group. In spite of higher incidence of acute toxicities with concurrent chemoradiation therapy, the survival gain in subgroup of patients with good performance status were encouraging. CRT group showed higher rate of early death within 1 year, higher 2 year survival rate compared with RT group Therefore, to evaluate the accurate effect on survival of concurrent chemoradiation therapy, systematic follow-up for long term survivors are needed.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.105-110
• /
• 2007

Purpose : In spite of recent remarkable improvement of diagnostic imaging modalities such as CT, MRI, and PET and radiation therapy planing systems, ICR plan of uterine cervix cancer, based on recommendation of ICRU38(2D film-based) such as Point A, is still used widely. A 3-dimensional ICR plan based on CT image provides dose-volume histogram(DVH) information of the tumor and normal tissue. In this study, we compared tumor-dose, rectal-dose and bladder-dose through an analysis of DVH between CTV plan and ICRU38 plan based on CT image. Method and Material : We analyzed 11 patients with a cervix cancer who received the ICR of Ir-192 HDR. After 40Gy of external beam radiation therapy, ICR plan was established using PLATO(Nucletron) v.14.2 planing system. CT scan was done to all the patients using CT-simulator(Ultra Z, Philips). We contoured CTV, rectum and bladder on the CT image and established CTV plan which delivers the 100% dose to CTV and ICRU plan which delivers the 100% dose to the point A. Result : The volume$(average{\pm}SD)$ of CTV, rectum and bladder in all of 11 patients is $21.8{\pm}6.6cm^3,\;60.9{\pm}25.0cm^3,\;111.6{\pm}40.1cm^3$ respectively. The volume covered by 100% isodose curve is $126.7{\pm}18.9cm^3$ in ICRU plan and $98.2{\pm}74.5cm^3$ in CTV plan(p=0.0001), respectively. In (On) ICRU planning, $22.0cm^3$ of CTV volume was not covered by 100% isodose curve in one patient whose residual tumor size is greater than 4cm, while more than 100% dose was irradiated unnecessarily to the normal organ of $62.2{\pm}4.8cm^3$ other than the tumor in the remaining 10 patients with a residual tumor less than 4cm in size. Bladder dose recommended by ICRU 38 was $90.1{\pm}21.3%$ and $68.7{\pm}26.6%$ in ICRU plan and in CTV plan respectively(p=0.001) while rectal dose recommended by ICRU 38 was $86.4{\pm}18.3%$ and $76.9{\pm}15.6%$ in ICRU plan and in CTV plan, respectively(p=0.08). Bladder and rectum maximum dose was $137.2{\pm}50.1%,\;101.1{\pm}41.8%$ in ICRU plan and $107.6{\pm}47.9%,\;86.9{\pm}30.8%$ in CTV plan, respectively. Therefore, the radiation dose to normal organ was lower in CTV plan than in ICRU plan. But the normal tissue dose was remarkably higher than a recommended dose in CTV plan in one patient whose residual tumor size was greater than 4cm. The volume of rectum receiving more than 80% isodose (V80rec) was $1.8{\pm}2.4cm^3$ in ICRU plan and $0.7{\pm}1.0cm^3$ in CTV plan(p=0.02). The volume of bladder receiving more than 80% isodose(V80bla) was $12.2{\pm}8.9cm^3$ in ICRU plan and $3.5{\pm}4.1cm^3$ in CTV plan(p=0.005). According to these parameters, CTV plan could also save more normal tissue compared to ICRU38 plan. Conclusion : An unnecessary excessive radiation dose is irradiated to normal tissues within 100% isodose area in the traditional ICRU plan in case of a small size of cervix cancer, but if we use CTV plan based on CT image, the normal tissue dose could be reduced remarkably without a compromise of tumor dose. However, in a large tumor case, we need more research on an effective 3D-planing to reduce the normal tissue dose.