4.7 Article

Clinical and Dosimetric Predictors of Radiation Pneumonitis in a Large Series of Patients Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy to the Lung

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.03.041

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To report clinical and dosimetric factors predictive of radiation pneumonitis (RP) in patients receiving lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) from a series of 240 patients. Methods and Materials: Of the 297 isocenters treating 263 patients, 240 patients (n=263 isocenters) had evaluable information regarding RP. Age, gender, current smoking status and pack-years, O-2 use, Charlson Comorbidity Index, prior lung radiation therapy (yes/no), dose/fractionation, V-5, V-13, V-20, V-prescription, mean lung dose, planning target volume (PTV), total lung volume, and PTV/lung volume ratio were recorded. Results: Twenty-nine patients (11.0%) developed symptomatic pneumonitis (26 grade 2, 3 grade 3). The mean V-20 was 6.5% (range, 0.4%-20.2%), and the average mean lung dose was 5.03 Gy (0.547-12.2 Gy). In univariable analysis female gender (P=.0257) and Charlson Comorbidity index (P=.0366) were significantly predictive of RP. Among dosimetric parameters, V-5 (P=.0186), V-13 (P=.0438), and V-prescription (where dose=60 Gy) (P=.0128) were significant. There was only a trend toward significance for V-20 (P=.0610). Planning target volume/normal lung volume ratio was highly significant (P=.0024). In multivariable analysis the clinical factors of female gender, pack-years smoking, and larger gross internal tumor volume and PTV were predictive (P=.0094, .0312, .0364, and .052, respectively), but no dosimetric factors were significant. Conclusions: Rate of symptomatic RP was 11%. Our mean lung dose was <600 cGy in most cases and V20 <10%. In univariable analysis, dosimetric factors were predictive, while tumor size (or tumor/lung volume ratio) played a role in multivariable and univariable and analysis, respectively. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据