ctos 2013 radiation oncology session discussion elizabeth h baldini, md, mph associate professor of...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
CTOS 2013Radiation Oncology Session Discussion
Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH
Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology
Harvard Medical School
Brigham and Women's Hospital and
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
![Page 2: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
I have no disclosures.
![Page 3: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
“Making the Case for IMRT”
![Page 4: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
3D Conventional vs IMRT
3D (Conventional)Fixed beams deliver
uniform dose
Conform dose to the target
Dose gradient less steep set-up less crucial
Less expensive
IMRTBeams deliver variable
dose intensity
Sculpts dose to better conform to target
Dose gradient is steep set-up must be precise
More expensive
![Page 5: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
3D vs IMRT Dose Distributions*
IsodosesRed: 100%; Light blue: 20-30%*Hong, IJROBP 59:752; 2004
![Page 6: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
IMRT and Local Control
![Page 7: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Late Effects of Pre-operative Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) in
Extremity Sarcoma Patients: Results of RTOG 0630
Wang D, Zhang Q, Eisenberg B, Kane J, Li A, Lucas D, Freeman C,
Trotti A, Hitchcock Y, Kirsch D
RTOG multi-center trial
![Page 8: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
RTOG 0630
• 79 Patients with extremity STS
• Treated with pre-op RT + S
• RT Technique: 75% IMRT
• 3-year LR: 7 %
![Page 9: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Quantitative Dosimetric Analysis of Patterns of Local Relapse After IMRT
for Primary Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcomas
Lanning R, Berry S, Folkert M, Alektiar K
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY
![Page 10: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
MSKCC
• 165 Patients extremity STS
• Treated with S + RT–79% post-op RT
• RT technique: 100% IMRT
• 5-year LR: 8.4%
![Page 11: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Local Control Rates for Modern Series3D Conventional and IMRT: Similarly Excellent
5-yr LRRT Modality3D vs IMRT
RT Sequence
Patient Number
NCIC RCT, 2004O’Sullivan
6%, 7% 100% 3D Pre-op + Post-op
190
BWH/DFCI, 2013Baldini
10% 84% 3D Pre-op 103
MSKCC, 2013Alektiar
14.3% 100% 3D 88% Post-op
155
MGH, 2010Kim
11.5% 88% 3D Pre-op 56
PMH, 2013O’Sullivan
11.8% 100% IMRT (flap sparing)
Pre-op 59
MSKCC, 2013Lanning
8.4% 100% IMRT 79% Post-op
165
RTOG 0630, 2013Kirsch
7%(3-yr)
75% IMRT Pre-op 79
![Page 12: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
IMRT and Late Effects
Subcutaneous Fibrosis, Joint Stiffness, Edema
Bone Fracture
Wound Complications
![Page 13: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Subcutaneous Fibrosis, Joint Stiffness, Edema
![Page 14: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Late Effects of Pre-operative Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) in
Extremity Sarcoma Patients: Results of RTOG 0630
Wang D, Zhang Q, Eisenberg B, Kane J, Li A, Lucas D, Freeman C,
Trotti A, Hitchcock Y, Kirsch D
RTOG Multi-Center Trial
![Page 15: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
RTOG 0630 vs NCI Canada Randomized Trial*Late Toxicity at 2 Years
RTOG 0630 Pre-op Arm NCIC
> Grade 2 Toxicity 10.5% 37%
Subcutaneous Fibrosis
5.4%** 31.5%
Joint Stiffness 5.4%** 17.8%
Edema 5.2%** 15.1%
*O’Sullivan, Lancet 2002, 359:2235; Davis, Radiother Oncol 2005, 75:48**Wang, IJROBP 2013, 87:S63
•Authors compare their results to NCIC trial
![Page 16: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
RTOG 0630 vs NCI Canada Randomized Trial*Study Details: Some Major Differences
RTOG 0630 Pre-op Arm NCIC
Study Era 2008-10 1994-97
Evaluable Patients 57 73
Follow-up Median 27 mos Minimum 21 mos
Clinical Target Volume
Smaller(2-3 cm margin on GTV)
Larger(4 cm margin on GTV)
RT Technique 75% IMRT 100% 3D
Late effect assessment schedule & tools
Same Same
*O’Sullivan, Lancet 2002, 359:2235; Davis, Radiother Oncol 2005, 75:48
![Page 17: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Other Late Toxicity Results Modern Era with IMRT
Institution PMH* MSKCC** RTOG 0630*** Pre-op Arm NCIC
Study Era 2005-09 2002-10 2008-10 1994-1997
Patient Number 51 165 57 73
Treatment Modality
100% IMRT (sparing flap)
100% IMRT (79% post-op)
75% IMRT 100% 3D
Subcutaneous Fibrosis
9.3% NS 5.4% 31.5%
Joint Stiffness 5.6% 14.5% 5.4% 17.8%
Edema 11.1% 7.9% 5.2% 15.1%
*O’Sullivan Cancer 2013, 119:1878; **Alektiar IJROBP 2013, 87:S63 2008,26:344-0 and personal communication***Wang, IJROBP 2013, 87:S63
•Use of IMRT may be the main reason for reduced toxicity
![Page 18: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Bone Fracture
![Page 19: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Evaluation of Femur Fracture Risk in Soft Tissue Sarcoma of the
Thigh Treated with IMRT
Folkert M, Singer S, Brennan M, Boland P, Alektiar K
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY
![Page 20: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
MSKCC Results
• 82 patients treated with S + RT
• RT technique: 100% IMRT
• Fracture Rate 6.1%
• Expected Fracture Rate using PMH Nomogram: 26.4%
• This finding is not surprising …
![Page 21: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
PMH Nomogram Derived from 3D Era
• Patients treated 1986-2006
• RT Technique: 100% 3D RT
• Examined variables we might now consider proxies for more accurate variables
– Sex– Age – Compartment– Tumor Size– Radiation Dose– Periosteal Stripping
![Page 22: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
A Modern Era Comparison
• Subsequent PMH report from 2009*
• Examined dosimetric parameters
Lower risk of bone fracture if:»V40 < 64%»Mean bone dose < 37 Gy»Max bone dose < 59 Gy
• Agree with MSKCC authors that clinical variables in nomogram are less predictive
• Dosimetric variables are more predictive
*Dickie, IJROBP 75:1119; 2009
![Page 23: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
IMRT, Designed with Evidence-Based Bone Avoidance Objectives, Reduces
the Risk of Bone Fracture in the Management of Extremity Soft Tissue
Sarcoma
Dickie C, Sharpe M, Chung P, Griffin A, Parent A, Catton C, Ferguson P,
Wunder J, O’Sullivan B
Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto
![Page 24: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
PMH Results
• 230 patients treated with IMRT
• Employed bone avoidance objectives: » V40 < 64%» Mean bone dose < 37 Gy» Max bone dose < 59 Gy
• Fracture rate: 1.7%
• Lower than prior report of 6.3% (3D)
• Demonstrates – Validity of bone avoidance objectives– Objectives largely achievable with IMRT– Fracture rate much lower than prior rates in 3D series
![Page 25: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Wound Complications
![Page 26: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
In Depth Analysis of Wound Complications Following Preoperative Radiotherapy for Lower Extremity Soft
Tissue Sarcoma Patients
Dickie C, Griffin A, Moseley J, Biau D, Parent A, Sharpe M, Chung P, Catton C, Ferguson P, Wunder J,
O’Sullivan B
Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto
![Page 27: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
PMH Methods
• 59 Patients
• Treated with IMRT to spare the surgical flap
• PTV coverage prioritized over flap-sparing
![Page 28: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
PMH Results
• Wound Complications (WC):– 30.5% (flap-sparing IMRT)– 43% from NCIC trial (3D)
• WC were further reduced when 92% of flap spared– 14.3% when <1% overlap of flap and PTV*
• Flap-sparing and ability to reduce WC can ONLY be achieved using IMRT
*O’Sullivan Cancer 2013, 119:1878
![Page 29: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Conclusions
• IMRT Excellent Local Control –As good as, if not better than 3D– (Lanning, Kirsch, O’Sullivan)
• IMRT Less Late Toxicity vs 3D–Subcutaneous Fibrosis, Joint Stiffness,
Edema (Kirsch, Alektiar, O’Sullivan)
–Bone Fracture (Folkert, Dickie)
–Wound Complications (Dickie)
![Page 30: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Conclusions
Abstracts presented today combined with other published literature:
“Make the Case for IMRT”
![Page 31: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Clinical Implications
IMRT Should be Standard of Care
for Most Cases of Extremity STS
![Page 32: CTOS 2013 Radiation Oncology Session Discussion Elizabeth H Baldini, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology Harvard Medical School Brigham and](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56649e2a5503460f94b183b0/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Dana-Farber / Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center:Center for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology
• Surgical Oncology Monica Bertagnolli, MDChandrajit Raut, MD, MSc
• Medical OncologyJames Butrynski, MDDavid D’Adamo, MDGeorge Demetri, MDSuzanne George, MDJeffrey Morgan, MDAndrew Wagner, MD, PhD
• PathologyChristopher Fletcher, MDJonathan Fletcher, MDJason Hornick, MD, PhDAlessandra Nascimento, MD
• Radiation OncologyElizabeth Baldini, MD, MPHPhilip Devlin, MDKaren Marcus, MD
• Orthopedic OncologyMarco Ferrone, MDJohn Ready, MD
[email protected]@partners.org