4.4 Article

Dosimetric factors predicting radiation pneumonitis after CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy for peripheral lung cancer

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 89, 期 1068, 页码 -

出版社

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160560

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aims of this study were to investigate the frequency of symptomatic radiation pneumonitis (RP) after CyberKnife lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and to evaluate predictive factors of symptomatic RP. Methods: 56 patients with peripheral non-small-cell lung cancer were treated using the CyberKnife (R) VSI (TM) System (Accuracy Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) between May 2013 and September 2015. Total radiation doses ranged from 48 to 56 Gy, as delivered in four equal fractions. Symptomatic RP was defined as a grade of >= 2. Predictive factors for symptomatic RP were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: With a median follow-up duration of 12.5 months (range, 3-27 months), symptomatic RP was observed in 6 (10.7%) of the 56 patients. In the univariate analysis, percent vital capacity (p < 0.05), maximum tumour diameter (p < 0.05), gross tumour volume (p < 0.05), planning target volume (p < 0.01), mean lung dose (p < 0.01) and a normal lung volume receiving 5-50 Gy of radiation (V5-50) (p < 0.01) were identified as significant predictive factors for symptomatic RP. In the multivariate analysis, only a V-25 > 3.4% (p = 0.011) was identified as a significant predictive factor of symptomatic RP. Conclusion: The incidence of symptomatic RP after CyberKnife SBRT was almost identical to the incidences reported in the linear accelerator-based SBRT. A significant association was observed between a V-25 > 3.4% and the risk of developing symptomatic RP. Advances in knowledge: This is the first report that has investigated prognostic factors for symptomatic RP after CyberKnife SBRT for lung cancer. The newly developed scoring system may help to predict symptomatic RP.

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

4.4
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