Next Article in Journal
Rare Pediatric Cerebellar High-Grade Gliomas Mimic Medulloblastomas Histologically and Transcriptomically and Show p53 Mutations
Next Article in Special Issue
Radiomodulating Properties of Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticle (SPION) Agent Ferumoxytol on Human Monocytes: Implications for MRI-Guided Liver Radiotherapy
Previous Article in Journal
Cachexia and Sarcopenia in Oligometastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Making a Potential Curable Disease Incurable?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Robotic Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Intracranial Meningiomas—An Opportunity for Radiation Dose De-Escalation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/cancers16010231
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

And Yet It Moves: Clinical Outcomes and Motion Management in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) of Centrally Located Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Shedding Light on the Internal Organ at Risk Volume (IRV) Concept

by
Felix-Nikolai Oschinka Jegor Habermann
1,2,
Daniela Schmitt
1,2,
Thomas Failing
1,2,3,
David Alexander Ziegler
1,2,
Jann Fischer
1,2,
Laura Anna Fischer
1,2,
Manuel Guhlich
1,2,
Stephanie Bendrich
1,2,
Olga Knaus
1,2,
Tobias Raphael Overbeck
2,4,
Hannes Treiber
2,4,
Alexander von Hammerstein-Equord
2,5,
Raphael Koch
2,4,
Rami El Shafie
1,2,
Stefan Rieken
1,2,
Martin Leu
1,2 and
Leif Hendrik Dröge
1,2,*
1
Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
2
Göttingen Comprehensive Cancer Center (G-CCC), University Medical Center Göttingen, Von-Bar-Str. 2/4, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
3
Institute of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection (IMPS), University of Applied Sciences, Wiesenstr. 14, 35390 Gießen, Germany
4
Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
5
Department of Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2024, 16(1), 231; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16010231
Submission received: 4 December 2023 / Revised: 27 December 2023 / Accepted: 28 December 2023 / Published: 4 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Stereotactic Body Radiation and Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Therapy for Cancers)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

We studied clinical aspects in central vs. peripheral tumors (n = 78 patients) and applied the internal organ at risk volume (IRV) concept (n = 35 patients) in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for centrally located non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We found lower biologically effective doses, larger planning target volume sizes, higher lung doses, and worse locoregional control for central tumors when compared with peripheral tumors. We here provide evidence that organ motion/volume changes could be more pronounced in males and tall patients, and less pronounced in cases of higher body mass index. Applying the IRV concept (retrospectively, without new optimization), the normal tissue complication probabilities increased >10% for the bronchial tree in three patients. This study emphasizes the need to optimize methods to balance dose escalation with toxicities in central tumors. Since recent studies have made efforts to further subclassify central tumors to refine treatment, the IRV concept should be considered for optimal risk assessment.

Abstract

The internal organ at risk volume (IRV) concept might improve toxicity profiles in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We studied (1) clinical aspects in central vs. peripheral tumors, (2) the IRV concept in central tumors, (3) organ motion, and (4) associated normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs). We analyzed patients who received SBRT for NSCLC (clinical aspects, n = 78; motion management, n = 35). We found lower biologically effective doses, larger planning target volume sizes, higher lung doses, and worse locoregional control for central vs. peripheral tumors. Organ motion was greater in males and tall patients (bronchial tree), whereas volume changes were lower in patients with a high body mass index (BMI) (esophagus). Applying the IRV concept (retrospectively, without new optimization), we found an absolute increase of >10% in NTCPs for the bronchial tree in three patients. This study emphasizes the need to optimize methods to balance dose escalation with toxicities in central tumors. There is evidence that organ motion/volume changes could be more pronounced in males and tall patients, and less pronounced in patients with higher BMI. Since recent studies have made efforts to further subclassify central tumors to refine treatment, the IRV concept should be considered for optimal risk assessment.

1. Introduction

In patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are not suitable for surgery or refuse surgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an effective treatment option [1]. In stage I patients, SBRT achieves 2-year local control rates of >90% [2].
For SBRT, it has been demonstrated that higher biologically effective doses (≥100–125 Gy, alpha/beta ratio of 10 [BED10]) are crucial to achieve these excellent control rates [3,4]. At the same time, the tumors are located centrally in about 44% [5] of cases. Patients with tumors in central or ultra-central locations are at an increased risk of complications, e.g., bronchial stenosis or esophageal perforation [6,7,8,9]. Timmermann et al. reported that 46% of patients with central tumors experienced severe toxicities [10].
Thus, the maintenance of high-quality standards and continuous development of SBRT planning and delivery are required for safe and effective treatment [4,11]. Here, the management of structure motion within the breathing cycle plays a crucial role [11]. A four-dimensional CT scan (4D-CT) with the internal target volume (ITV) concept is widely applied to account for tumor motion [11,12]. The planning organ at risk volume concept (PRV) might help to reduce the probability of organs at risk (OARs) overdosage [13,14]. The concept is less well-studied and rarely used in clinical practice [14,15]. Additionally, intrafractional structure movement is not taken into account [15]. Here, the internal organ at risk volume (IRV) concept might be advantageous [15,16]. Nardone et al. found unacceptable treatment plans in 42% of the cases with central tumors when applying the IRV concept in SBRT for NSCLC [15].
In summary, SBRT in patients with centrally located NSCLC is a substantial challenge for the treatment team [17]. In this study, we compared clinical characteristics and outcomes in peripherally located vs. centrally located tumors in patients who received SBRT in the local radiotherapy department. Additionally, we analyzed the deviation of the geometric centers (OAR vs. IRV) and the volume differences (OAR vs. IRV) in serial OARs (bronchial tree, trachea, esophagus, and spinal canal) throughout the breathing cycle. We tested for an influence of patient-related characteristics on organ motion. Additionally, we evaluated whether the application of the IRV concept (retrospectively, without new optimization) leads to a relevant increase in normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs).

2. Patients and Methods

2.1. Study Design

We first identified all the patients in the medical records who were referred to the radiation oncology department for SBRT to the lungs or the mediastinal structures. A total of 151 patients were documented. We previously performed a study as part of the underlying project on patterns of pretreatment diagnostic assessment with a special focus on the COVID-19 pandemic [18]. Here, we present a study that differed in patient selection (Figure 1), methods, and outcome parameters. For the comparison of clinical characteristics and outcomes in centrally vs. peripherally located tumors, only patients with localized NSCLC (n = 78 patients) were included. For the analysis of motion management for OARs, we included all the patients with SBRT for NSCLC in a central tumor position (n = 35). Chang et al. recommended choosing a distance of 2 cm from any critical mediastinal structure as the cut-off for a central position [19]. In this study, we focused on tumors with a distance of ≤2 cm to the serial organs, bronchial tree and trachea (together, central airway), esophagus, and spinal canal. Please see Figure 1 for further details on patient selection. The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the University Medical Center Göttingen (application no. 3/10/20).

2.2. Radiotherapy, Planning and Delivery

Please see Habermann et al. in 2022 for a previous description of SBRT [18]. A 4D-CT with a respiration belt and the patient in a supine position was acquired for treatment planning. For patient positioning, customized devices were used. The ITV concept was used for target volume delineation [11,12]. The gross tumor volume (GTV) was delineated in all of the 10 breathing phases. The ITV was generated by including the GTVs in all the phases. The planning target volume (PTV) was created with individual margins, which were left at the discretion of the treating radiation oncologist (between 3 mm and 10 mm). For treatment planning, the software, Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA), was used. We applied the Eclipse versions 10.0 (12/2012–09/2013), 11.1 (10/2013–09/2014), 13.5 (10/2014–05/2020), and 15.6 (from 06/2020). Radiotherapy was applied with Varian Clinac 2300 CD linear accelerators (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Daily cone beam CT was used for image guidance. Please see Section 2.2.1 and Section 2.2.2 for further details on the patient cohorts.

2.2.1. Patient Cohort with Analysis of Clinical/SBRT Characteristics and Outcomes

We used the Philips Gemini TF TOF 16 (n = 22 patients), Philips Ingenuity Flex (n = 3 patients), and Philips Brilliance Big Bore (n = 53 patients) for the acquisition of the CT scans (each, Philips Medical Systems, Fitchburg, WI, USA). The slice thicknesses were 2 mm (n = 4 patients) and 3 mm (n = 72 patients). In 2 patients, a larger slice thickness of 5 mm was chosen on an individual basis in the clinical routine. We decided to include these 2 patients in the analysis of clinical outcomes since technical aspects were not the main endpoints in this part of the project. We used the algorithms Acuros (n = 70 patients) and AAA (n = 18 patients). In 61 patients, the prescription isodose was 80%. In 17 patients, radiotherapy was prescribed homogeneously.

2.2.2. Patient Cohort with Analyses on Motion Management

The CT scanners were the Philips Gemini TF TOF 16 (n = 11 patients), Philips Ingenuity Flex (n = 2 patients), and Philips Brilliance Big Bore (n = 22 patients) (each, Philips Medical Systems, Fitchburg, WI, USA). The slice thickness was 3 mm in all the patients (n = 35). We used the algorithm Acuros in all the patients (n = 35). The prescription isodose was 80% in 26 patients. In 9 patients, radiotherapy was prescribed homogeneously.

2.3. Endpoints and Statistical Methods

2.3.1. Patient Cohort with Analysis of Clinical/SBRT Characteristics and Outcomes

Please see Habermann et al. in 2022 for a previous description of statistical approaches in the underlying project [18]. We compared characteristics and outcomes between patients with centrally located and peripherally located tumors. When comparing baseline and SBRT characteristics, we used Pearson’s Chi-squared test and the Mann–Whitney U test (SPSS v. 27, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). In survival analyses, the endpoints were overall survival (OS, event: patient death due to any cause), progression-free survival (PFS, event: locoregional or distant progression and patient death), local progression-free survival (LPFS, events: local progression and patient death due to any cause), and locoregional control (LRC, events: local or regional relapse). The survival times were calculated from the first day of SBRT. We used Cox regression analysis (SPSS v. 27, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Additionally, the Kaplan–Meier curves with log-rank statistics were generated using the plugin, KMWin v 1.53 [20]. p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

2.3.2. Patient Cohort with Analyses on Motion Management

In the subset of 35 patients with SBRT of NSCLC in a central position, the IRV concept was applied (retrospectively, without new optimization). The 4D-CTs were used and the OARs (bronchial tree, trachea, esophagus, and spinal canal) were contoured on each of the 10 respiratory phases and the average intensity projection (AIP) CT scan. The OARs were delineated in accordance with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group guidelines [21]. The bronchial tree was defined as including the distal 2 cm of the trachea, the carina, the main bronchi, the right and left upper lobe bronchi, the bronchus intermedius, the right middle lobe bronchus, the lingular bronchus, and the right and left lower lobe bronchi [21]. The trachea was delineated from the lower edge of the larynx to the bronchial tree. The esophagus was contoured from just below the cricoid to the gastroesophageal junction [21]. The spinal canal was defined based on the surrounding bones [21]. We used the thoracic vertebrae 1–12 as upper and lower limits for the spinal canal. For each of the OARs, we propagated the contours from each of the respiratory phases to the AIP CT scan. Here, an IRV structure was generated.
We aimed to characterize patients with a clinically relevant increase in NTCPs when applying the IRV concept (retrospectively, without new optimization). First, we identified patients with a relevant increase in D1%, D2%, or maximum dose (Dmax) when comparing the dose for the OARs and the corresponding IRVs on the AIP CT scan (an increase of >5 Gy (bronchial tree, esophagus, trachea) or 0.5 Gy (spinal canal)). Please see Supplementary Figure S1 for a graphical presentation of the dose differences between the OARs and IRVs. In the patients with a relevant increase in these dose parameters, we calculated the NTCPs for the OARs and corresponding IRVs. For the spinal canal and the esophagus, we used the software, ‘RADBIOMOD’ (v.0.3b), with the Lyman–Kutcher–Burman model [22]. Since there is only limited data on NTCP calculations in the trachea and bronchial tree, we estimated the complication risks based on the models by Dujim et al. [23]. For these OARs, we calculated the maximum equivalent dose of 2 Gy per fraction (EQD2, α/β ratio = 3) and estimated the risks based on the NTCP models for any grade of radiographic toxicity in the lobar bronchi ([23], page 128). In previous studies, the risks (here, for proximal bronchial tree toxicity) were estimated in a similar way [24].
In the analyses on motion management, we compared volumes between the OARs on the AIP CT scan and the IRVs on the AIP CT scans. Additionally, we analyzed the deviation of the geometric centers of the OAR and the IRV structures. Therefore, the coordinates of the centers (x, y, z) were registered for the structures in each of the respiratory phases and the OARs in the AIP CT scan. We calculated the difference between the centers in each of the phases and the center of the IRV structure in the AIP CT scan. For further analysis, we considered the maximum difference for each structure. We tested for an influence of patient-related parameters (e.g., body height) on the volume differences and the distances between the geometric centers. Here, we used the Mann–Whitney U test and Spearman’s rank correlation (SPSS v. 27, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Clinical/SBRT Characteristics and Outcomes in Centrally vs. Peripherally Located Tumors

We compared characteristics and outcomes in patients with central and peripheral tumors (cut-off, distance ≤2 cm vs. >2 cm from central OAR (central airways, spinal canal, esophagus)). We found that the applied biologically effective dose (BED, alpha/beta ratio of 10 Gy) was significantly higher in patients with peripheral vs. central tumors (median 115.5 vs. 105 Gy, p = 0.001). In patients with central vs. peripheral tumors, a BED < 100 Gy was applied more frequently (27.3% vs. 5.4% of the patients, p = 0.006). The PTV volume was significantly higher in patients with central tumors (p = 0.046). The doses to lungs–GTV (i.e., the volume created by subtraction of the GTV from both lungs, differences in mean dose, V5Gy, and V20Gy) were higher in patients with central tumors (each, p < 0.05). SBRT application was incomplete in two patients (one patient with a central tumor, 7.5/60 Gy; one patient with a peripheral tumor, 52.5/60 Gy). Please see Table 1.
In the whole patient cohort (n = 78 patients), the 2-year overall survival rate was 56.8%. There were four patients with local progression, five patients with regional progression, and ten patients with distant progression. The median follow-up was 18.5 months (range, 0.6–65.5 months). At the end of follow-up, 36/78 patients (46.2%) were alive. Death was documented in 42/78 patients (53.8%). The causes of death were unknown in most of the patients (35/42 patients (83.3%)). In 7/42 patients (16.7%), the causes of death were tumor progression (n = 2), pneumonitis (n = 1), lung infection (n = 1), exacerbation of COPD (n = 1), cerebral mass with bleeding (potentially metastasis or vascular/ischemic cause, n = 1), and pancreatitis (n = 1).
When comparing patients with central vs. peripheral tumors, we found worse LRC (2-year LRC: 64.8% vs. 94.4%, log-rank, p = 0.0051, Figure 2). When analyzing the differences in outcomes separately for the OARs, we found worse outcomes for central airways (PFS, LPFS (Figure 3), and LRC) and for the esophagus (OS, PFS; LPFS, and LRC), but not for the spinal canal (Please see Supplementary Table S1 for the results of the respective survival analyses).

3.2. Structure Movement Amplitudes and Volumes

For analyses on motion management, 35 patients with central tumors were studied. Herein, we present the mean values for the patient cohort. The maximum differences in geometric centers between the OARs in each respiratory phase and the IRVs on the AIP CT scan were 5.2 mm (bronchial tree), 4.2 mm (trachea), 5.5 mm (esophagus), and 4.3 mm (spinal canal). The absolute volume differences between OARs and IRVs were 22.0 cm3 (bronchial tree), 7.8 cm3 (trachea), 19.6 cm3 (esophagus), and 8.2 cm3 (spinal canal). Please see Table 2 for further details.

3.3. Influence of Clinical Characteristics on Structure Movement and Volume Changes

Furthermore, we tested for an influence of clinical characteristics on structure movement and volume changes in the 35 patients with central tumors. Here, we considered the patient’s age, gender, body height, weight, and body mass index (BMI). In Figure 4a–c, we present the parameters with a significant influence on movement or volume changes. We found a greater maximum vector of movement for the bronchial tree in males (Figure 4a) and in tall patients (Figure 4b, cut-off, median of 1.68 m). Additionally, we found fewer volume changes for the esophagus in patients with high body mass index (BMI, >25 kg/m2, Figure 4c). Please see Supplementary Table S2 for a detailed analysis of the influence of all the clinical characteristics.

3.4. Influence of the Internal Organ at Risk Volume (IRV) Concept on Normal Tissue Complication Probabilities (NTCPs)

Here, we aimed to characterize patients with a clinically relevant increase in NTCPs among the 35 patients with central tumors when applying the IRV concept (retrospectively, without new optimization). First, we identified 12 patients with a relevant increase in dosimetric parameters when comparing OARs and IRVs (please see Section 2.3.2 and Supplementary Figure S1). In these patients, the NTCPs for OARs and corresponding IRVs were calculated (Supplementary Table S3, differences in maximum doses and NTCPs for these patients). The mean absolute increase in NTCPs was 5.5% (0–22.5%), and the mean relative increase was 54.78% (0–181%). Please see Table 3 and Supplementary Table S3. Please see Figure 5 for an illustration of the respiration-dependent movement of the bronchial tree and its influence on NTCPs.

4. Discussion

SBRT yields excellent local tumor control in patients with early-stage NSCLC when indicated, e.g., in elderly patients or in patients who refuse surgery [2]. At the same time, treatment can be associated with relevant complications, especially in patients with a central tumor location [10,25]. Previous authors hypothesized that the PRV/IRV concept might improve toxicity profiles [13,14,15]. Nardone et al. applied the IRV concept in patients with SBRT for NSCLC. When taking the organ motion into account, 42% of the radiotherapy plans were unacceptable [15]. This work aims at (1) comparing clinical aspects in central vs. peripheral tumors, (2) applying the IRV concept in central tumors (retrospectively, without new optimization), (3) analyzing organ motion, and (4) studying associated NTCPs.
We found that, in patients with central tumors, the median BED was significantly lower (central, median 105 Gy vs. peripheral, median 115.5 Gy). A BED of <100 Gy was applied in 27.3% of patients with central tumors vs. 5.4% of patients with peripheral tumors. Patients with central tumors had higher PTV volumes and higher doses to lungs–GTV (mean dose, V5Gy, and V20Gy). Furthermore, we found worse LRC in patients with central tumors (2-year LRC of 64.8% vs. 94.4% in patients with peripheral tumors). When analyzing the outcomes separately for the OAR, we found worse outcomes for the central airways and for the esophagus, but not for the spinal canal.
Our results are in line with previous studies on comparisons of central vs. peripheral tumors in SBRT of early-stage NSCLC. These studies found lower BED (mean 120.2 vs. 143.5 Gy [5]), larger tumor size (as we found larger PTV volumes, with tumors of mean 1.9 vs. 2.5 cm and median 2.6 vs. 3.1 cm in peripheral vs. central location [5,26]), higher lung doses (V5Gy, V20Gy [27]), and worse local control (freedom from local progression, 52% (central) vs. 84% (peripheral) [26]) in central tumors. Additionally, previous studies demonstrated that a BED10Gy of ≥100 Gy is associated with higher local control, and that dose escalation increases local control/overall survival and complications [28]. In the presented study, in line with these findings, patients with central lesions received a BED10Gy of <100 Gy in a higher percentage and, consecutively, experienced worse LRC.
In conclusion, in clinical routine, the perception of increased complication risks leads to insufficient doses and reduced outcomes in patients with centrally located tumors [26]. In spite of the perception of high complication risks, previous studies found lower rates of ≥grade 3 acute toxicities [5] and low overall rates of toxicities [26] in patients with central tumors. Thus, in clinical routine, balancing dose escalation/tumor control and complication risks (especially concerning the central airways [25]) is very challenging and controversially discussed [29]. In this context, motion management strategies are very important [11]. When active motion management techniques are not available/applicable, safety margins/4D-CT and internal motion have to be considered [11]. However, data on the internal motion of central organs at risk in SBRT of early-stage NSCLC are very rare (e.g., [15]).
When applying the IRV concept (retrospectively, without new optimization), we found maximum differences in the geometric centers of mean 4.2 mm (trachea), 4.3 mm (spinal canal), 5.2 mm (bronchial tree), and 5.5 mm (esophagus). The relative differences in volume (IRV–OAR, mean) were 16.1% (spinal canal), 19.4% (trachea), 40.9% (bronchial tree), and 47.5% (esophagus). The maximum vector of movement for the bronchial tree was greater in males and in tall patients. The volume changes (IRV–OAR) in the esophagus were lower in patients with high BMI.
In the literature, specific data on thoracic organ motion are very rare. When considering our results and the study by Nardone et al. [15], there is evidence that there are relevant volume differences (IRVs–OARs). In detail, the authors reported a difference of 4% (spinal cord), 23% (trachea), and 25% (esophagus) (proximal bronchial tree, absolute difference of 18 vs. 26 cm3, relative difference not reported, thus, putatively, 44%) [15]. Zhang et al. used the IRV concept for the thoracic and abdominal organs. However, the discussed central OARs (bronchial tree, trachea, esophagus, and spinal canal) were not studied by Zhang et al. [16]. To the authors’ knowledge, a putative relationship between patient characteristics and structure movement/volume changes has not been reported. However, an analysis seems reasonable, since previous studies found evidence for increased risks of toxicity associated with SBRT of NSCLC for females (here, for pneumonitis [30]) or obese patients (here, for chest wall pain [31]). After all, our results indicate that organ motion could be more pronounced in males and tall patients, whereas it could be less pronounced in patients with higher BMI. This could have implications for risk-adapted strategies in motion management or toxicity monitoring in these patient groups.
Finally, when comparing OARs and IRVs, we found a relevant increase in dosimetric parameters (D1%, D2%, Dmax) in 12/35 patients (34.3%) with central tumors. Nardone et al. found unacceptable radiotherapy plans in 42% of the patients (here, in 63% of the patients, the tumors were located centrally) [15]. These findings demonstrate that the application of the IRV concept has a relevant impact on dosimetric parameters and radiotherapy plans. In further analysis of the 12 patients in our study, the mean absolute increase in NTCPs was 5.5% (0–22.5%), and the mean relative increase was 54.78% (0–181%). It can be assumed that an absolute increase of ≥10% in NTCPs could be clinically relevant. This was documented in three patients for the bronchial tree. In these cases, the distance between the tumor and the bronchial tree was 0.3–1.4 cm.
When considering relevant complications in SBRT for central tumors, larger prospective studies pointed towards a particular relevance of the bronchial tree (e.g., Lindberg et al., 8/10 cases of treatment-related death occurred due to bronchopulmonary hemorrhage [25]). The region of ≤2 cm around the proximal bronchial tree is generally considered the “no-fly zone”, with an increased risk of relevant toxicities [10,32]. Studies have made efforts to further subclassify this area, e.g., when analyzing tumors located nearer (≤1 cm) to the bronchial tree [33]. Recently, Lindberg et al. refined the risk factors for toxicity by considering the dose to further substructures (here, mainstem, intermediate, and lobar bronchi) [34]. However, when applying the IRV concept, our study found an increase of ≥10% in NTCPs in three patients with tumors 0.3–1.4 cm from the bronchial tree. Thus, when it comes to these distinct differences or very small substructures, motion management (as a possibility, using the IRV concept) should come into focus. However, as Noël et al. pointed out in 2022, considering the PRV concept in general—albeit already described in 2006—neither definition, purpose, nor dose constraints exist [14,35]. Studies on the IRV concept in thoracic OARs are very rare but could increase the perception of OAR motion in SBRT, in analogy to Galileo’s famous comment, ‘and yet it moves’ [15,16,36]. Finally, recent developments include the implementation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in linear accelerators with the opportunity of real-time tracking for target volumes (four-dimensional MRI, 4D-MRI) [37]. There is evidence that 4D-MRI is a promising technique for lung tumor delineation and motion assessment with greater robustness against inter-fractional changes than 4D-CT-based radiotherapy [37]. Previous studies have reported results when applying 4D-MRI for target volumes [37], whereas thoracic OARs were studied less frequently [38]. Thus, when considering motion management in SBRT for central lung tumors, 4D-MRI can be considered a promising technology for an optimal balance of toxicities and tumor control [39].

5. Conclusions

The IRV concept might improve toxicity profiles in SBRT for NSCLC [13,14,15]. We studied (1) clinical aspects in central vs. peripheral tumors, (2) the IRV concept in central tumors, (3) organ motion, and (4) associated NTCPs. We found lower biologically effective doses, larger planning target volume sizes, higher lung doses, and worse locoregional control for central tumors. This emphasizes the need to optimize methods to balance dose escalation with toxicities in central tumors. Organ motion was greater in males and tall patients (both, for the bronchial tree), whereas volume changes were lower in patients with higher BMI (for the esophagus). This could have implications for risk-adapted strategies in motion management or toxicity monitoring in these patient groups. Applying the IRV concept (retrospectively, without new optimization), we found an absolute increase of >10% in NTCPs for the bronchial tree in three patients (distance from the bronchial tree, 0.3–1.4 cm). Recent studies made efforts to further subclassify central tumors in the “no-fly zone”, either by exact distance or by substructures (e.g., mainstem, intermediate, and lobar bronchi) [33,34]. Based on the NTCP increase in our study, when it comes to these distinct differences or very small sub-structures, motion management (as a possibility, using the IRV concept) should come into focus.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers16010231/s1, Figure S1: Absolute dose differences [Gy] between organ at risk and internal organs at risk volumes. The dose differences are shown as a function of the distance of the tumors to the respective structure. Each dot (green, D1%, yellow, D2%, red, Dmax) represents the dose difference for one patient. The dashed line marks the cut-off for a relevant dose increase (please see Section 2.3.2). Table S1: Cox regression analysis, distance of the tumor to organs at risk, and outcomes. HR: hazard ratio. OS: overall survival. PFS: progression-free survival. LPFS: local progression-free survival. LRC: locoregional control. CI: confidence interval. 1 Central organs at risk (OARs): central airway, esophagus, and spinal canal. Table S2: Influence of clinical characteristics on structure movement and volume changes. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to test for an influence of the parameters. P-values are given for each parameter. SBRT: stereotactic body radiation therapy. OAR: organ at risk. IRV: internal organ at risk volumes. AIP: average intensity projection. Table S3: Differences in maximum doses and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) when comparing organ at risk (OAR) and internal organ at risk volumes (IRV). Patients with relevant increases in dosimetric parameters were preselected (Section 2.3.2, Supplementary Figure S1). For these patients (n = 12), we present the distance of the tumor to the structures, the maximum doses, and the NTCPs. The NTCPs for the bronchial tree and the trachea were estimated using the graphs for the maximum dose (in EQD2) for the bronchial tree by Dujim et al. The NTCPs for the esophagus and the spinal canal were calculated using the software, ‘RADBIOMOD’, with the Lyman–Kutcher–Burman model (please see Section 2.3.2 for further details).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.-N.O.J.H., D.S., A.v.H.-E., S.R. and L.H.D.; data curation, F.-N.O.J.H., M.G., M.L. and L.H.D.; formal analysis, F.-N.O.J.H., M.L. and L.H.D.; investigation, F.-N.O.J.H., D.S., D.A.Z., L.A.F., S.B., O.K., H.T., R.K., S.R. and L.H.D.; methodology, F.-N.O.J.H., D.S., T.F., J.F., M.G., S.B., T.R.O., H.T., A.v.H.-E., S.R. and L.H.D.; project administration, F.-N.O.J.H., D.S. and L.H.D.; resources, S.R.; software, D.S., T.F., J.F. and R.E.S.; supervision, D.S., T.R.O., A.v.H.-E., R.K., R.E.S. and L.H.D.; visualization, F.-N.O.J.H., M.L. and L.H.D.; writing—original draft, F.-N.O.J.H. and L.H.D.; writing—review and editing, F.-N.O.J.H., D.S., T.F., D.A.Z., J.F., L.A.F., M.G., S.B., O.K., T.R.O., H.T., A.v.H.-E., R.K., R.E.S., S.R., M.L. and L.H.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the University Medical Center Göttingen (application no. 3/10/20, date of approval: 20 October 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Due to the retrospective study design, additional informed consent was not required.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ceniceros, L.; Aristu, J.; Castañón, E.; Rolfo, C.; Legaspi, J.; Olarte, A.; Valtueña, G.; Moreno, M.; Gil-Bazo, I. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for the treatment of inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer patients. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2016, 18, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Soldà, F.; Lodge, M.; Ashley, S.; Whitington, A.; Goldstraw, P.; Brada, M. Stereotactic radiotherapy (SABR) for the treatment of primary non-small cell lung cancer; Systematic review and comparison with a surgical cohort. Radiother. Oncol. 2013, 109, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kestin, L.; Grills, I.; Guckenberger, M.; Belderbos, J.; Hope, A.J.; Werner-Wasik, M.; Sonke, J.-J.; Bissonnette, J.-P.; Xiao, Y.; Yan, D. Dose–response relationship with clinical outcome for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered via online image guidance. Radiother. Oncol. 2014, 110, 499–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Guckenberger, M.; Andratschke, N.; Alheit, H.; Holy, R.; Moustakis, C.; Nestle, U.; Sauer, O. Definition of stereotactic body radiotherapy: Principles and practice for the treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2014, 190, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Park, H.S.; Harder, E.M.; Mancini, B.R.; Decker, R.H. Central versus Peripheral Tumor Location: Influence on Survival, Local Control, and Toxicity Following Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Primary Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2015, 10, 832–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hoffman, D.; Dragojević, I.; Hoisak, J.; Hoopes, D.; Manger, R. Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) dose gradient and PTV volume: A retrospective multi-center analysis. Radiat. Oncol. 2019, 14, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kang, K.H.; Okoye, C.C.; Patel, R.B.; Siva, S.; Biswas, T.; Ellis, R.J.; Yao, M.; Machtay, M.; Lo, S.S. Complications from Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer. Cancers 2015, 7, 981–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wu, A.J.; Williams, E.; Modh, A.; Foster, A.; Yorke, E.; Rimner, A.; Jackson, A. Dosimetric predictors of esophageal toxicity after stereotactic body radiotherapy for central lung tumors. Radiother. Oncol. 2014, 112, 267–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. van Hoorn, J.E.; Dahele, M.; Daniels, J.M.A. Late Central Airway Toxicity after High-Dose Radiotherapy: Clinical Outcomes and a Proposed Bronchoscopic Classification. Cancers 2021, 13, 1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Timmerman, R.; McGarry, R.; Yiannoutsos, C.; Papiez, L.; Tudor, K.; DeLuca, J.; Ewing, M.; Abdulrahman, R.; DesRosiers, C.; Williams, M.; et al. Excessive toxicity when treating central tumors in a phase II study of stereotactic body radiation therapy for medically inoperable early-stage lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006, 24, 4833–4839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Schmitt, D.; Blanck, O.; Gauer, T.; Fix, M.K.; Brunner, T.B.; Fleckenstein, J.; Loutfi-Krauss, B.; Manser, P.; Werner, R.; Wilhelm, M.-L.; et al. Technological quality requirements for stereotactic radiotherapy: Expert review group consensus from the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2020, 196, 421–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Yeo, S.-G.; Kim, E.S. Efficient approach for determining four-dimensional computed tomography-based internal target volume in stereotactic radiotherapy of lung cancer. Radiat. Oncol. J. 2013, 31, 247–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. De Ruysscher, D.; Faivre-Finn, C.; Moeller, D.; Nestle, U.; Hurkmans, C.W.; Le Péchoux, C.; Belderbos, J.; Guckenberger, M.; Senan, S. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) recommendations for planning and delivery of high-dose, high precision radiotherapy for lung cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2017, 124, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Stroom, J.C.; Heijmen, B.J. Limitations of the planning organ at risk volume (PRV) concept. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006, 66, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nardone, V.; Giugliano, F.M.; Reginelli, A.; Sangiovanni, A.; Mormile, M.; Iadanza, L.; Cappabianca, S.; Guida, C. 4D CT analysis of organs at risk (OARs) in stereotactic radiotherapy. Radiother. Oncol. 2020, 151, 10–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zhang, J.; Markova, S.; Garcia, A.; Huang, K.; Nie, X.; Choi, W.; Lu, W.; Wu, A.; Rimner, A.; Li, G. Evaluation of automatic contour propagation in T2-weighted 4DMRI for normal-tissue motion assessment using internal organ-at-risk volume (IRV). J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2018, 19, 598–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Andruska, N.; Stowe, H.B.; Crockett, C.; Liu, W.; Palma, D.; Faivre-Finn, C.; Badiyan, S.N. Stereotactic Radiation for Lung Cancer: A Practical Approach to Challenging Scenarios. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2021, 16, 1075–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Habermann, F.-N.O.J.; Schmitt, D.; Failing, T.; Fischer, J.; Ziegler, D.A.; Fischer, L.A.; Alt, N.J.; Muster, J.; Donath, S.; Hille, A.; et al. Patterns of Pretreatment Diagnostic Assessment in Patients Treated with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Special Characteristics in the COVID Pandemic and Influence on Outcomes. Curr. Oncol. 2022, 29, 1080–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chang, J.Y.; Bezjak, A.; Mornex, F. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for centrally located early stage non-small-cell lung cancer: What we have learned. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2015, 10, 577–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gross, A.; Ziepert, M.; Scholz, M. KMWin—A convenient tool for graphical presentation of results from Kaplan-Meier survival time analysis. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kong, F.-M.S.; Quint, L.; Machtay, M.; Bradley, J. Atlases for Organs at Risk (OARs) in Thoracic Radiation Therapy. Available online: https://www.nrgoncology.org/Portals/0/Scientific%20Program/CIRO/Atlases/Lung%20Organs%20at%20Risk.ppt (accessed on 6 August 2021).
  22. Chang, J.H.; Gehrke, C.; Prabhakar, R.; Gill, S.; Wada, M.; Joon, D.L.; Khoo, V. RADBIOMOD: A simple program for utilising biological modelling in radiotherapy plan evaluation. Phys. Medica 2016, 32, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Duijm, M. Outcome and Toxicity Modelling after Stereoactic Radiotherapy of Central Lung Tumors. Available online: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjpi-3Y7MvyAhX2R_EDHUUNAb8QFnoECAQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Frepub.eur.nl%2Fpub%2F134875%2FEmbargo-version-thesis-M-Duijm.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0yAt8B78bxLWtOomr_zQCw (accessed on 25 August 2021).
  24. Murrell, D.H.; Laba, J.M.; Erickson, A.; Millman, B.; Palma, D.A.; Louie, A.V. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for ultra-central lung tumors: Prioritize target coverage or organs at risk? Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 13, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Lindberg, K.; Grozman, V.; Karlsson, K.; Lindberg, S.; Lax, I.; Wersäll, P.; Persson, G.F.; Josipovic, M.; Khalil, A.A.; Moeller, D.S.; et al. The HILUS-Trial—A Prospective Nordic Multicenter Phase 2 Study of Ultracentral Lung Tumors Treated with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2021, 16, 1200–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Schanne, D.H.; Nestle, U.; Allgäuer, M.; Andratschke, N.; Appold, S.; Dieckmann, U.; Ernst, I.; Ganswindt, U.; Grosu, A.L.; Holy, R.; et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for centrally located stage I NSCLC: A multicenter analysis. Strahlenther Onkol. 2015, 191, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. He, J.; Huang, Y.; Shi, S.; Hu, Y.; Zeng, Z. Comparison of Effects Between Central and Peripheral Stage I Lung Cancer Using Image-Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy via Helical Tomotherapy. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2015, 14, 701–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Yu, T.; Shin, I.-S.; Yoon, W.S.; Rim, C.H. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Centrally Located Primary Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Clin. Lung Cancer 2019, 20, e452–e462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Roesch, J.; Panje, C.; Sterzing, F.; Mantel, F.; Nestle, U.; Andratschke, N.; Guckenberger, M. SBRT for centrally localized NSCLC—What is too central? Radiat. Oncol. 2016, 11, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Takeda, A.; Ohashi, T.; Kunieda, E.; Sanuki, N.; Enomoto, T.; Takeda, T.; Oku, Y.; Shigematsu, N. Comparison of clinical, tumour-related and dosimetric factors in grade 0–1, grade 2 and grade 3 radiation pneumonitis after stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung tumours. Br. J. Radiol. 2012, 85, 636–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Welsh, J.; Thomas, J.; Shah, D.; Allen, P.K.; Wei, X.; Mitchell, K.; Gao, S.; Balter, P.; Komaki, R.; Chang, J.Y. Obesity increases the risk of chest wall pain from thoracic stereotactic body radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2011, 81, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Thompson, M.; Rosenzweig, K.E. The evolving toxicity profile of SBRT for lung cancer. Transl. Lung Cancer Res. 2019, 8, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Haseltine, J.M.; Rimner, A.; Gelblum, D.Y.; Modh, A.; Rosenzweig, K.E.; Jackson, A.; Yorke, E.D.; Wu, A.J. Fatal complications after stereotactic body radiation therapy for central lung tumors abutting the proximal bronchial tree. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2016, 6, e27–e33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lindberg, S.; Grozman, V.; Karlsson, K.; Onjukka, E.; Lindbäck, E.; Al Jirf, K.; Lax, I.; Wersäll, P.; Persson, G.F.; Josipovic, M.; et al. Expanded HILUS Trial: A Pooled Analysis of Risk Factors for Toxicity from Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy of Central and Ultracentral Lung Tumors. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Noël, G.; Antoni, D. Organs at risk radiation dose constraints. Cancer Radiother. 2022, 26, 59–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Almeida, P.F. And Yet It Moves. Biophys. J. 2017, 113, 759–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rabe, M.; Thieke, C.; Düsberg, M.; Neppl, S.; Gerum, S.; Reiner, M.; Nicolay, N.H.; Schlemmer, H.; Debus, J.; Dinkel, J.; et al. Real-time 4DMRI-based internal target volume definition for moving lung tumors. Med. Phys. 2020, 47, 1431–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Habatsch, M.; Schneider, M.; Requardt, M.; Doussin, S. Movement assessment of breast and organ-at-risks using free-breathing, self-gating 4D magnetic resonance imaging workflow for breast cancer radiation therapy. Phys. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 22, 111–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Crockett, C.B.; Samson, P.; Chuter, R.; Dubec, M.; Faivre-Finn, C.; Green, O.L.; Hackett, S.L.; McDonald, F.; Robinson, C.; Shiarli, A.-M.; et al. Initial Clinical Experience of MR-Guided Radiotherapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 617681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 16 00231 g001
Figure 1. The flow chart illustrates the patient selection for the comparison of clinical characteristics in centrally vs. peripherally located tumors (left side, blue background) and the studies on motion management for OARs (right side, orange background). SBRT: stereotactic body radiation therapy. OARs: organs at risk. IRV: internal organ at risk volume.
Figure 1. The flow chart illustrates the patient selection for the comparison of clinical characteristics in centrally vs. peripherally located tumors (left side, blue background) and the studies on motion management for OARs (right side, orange background). SBRT: stereotactic body radiation therapy. OARs: organs at risk. IRV: internal organ at risk volume.
Cancers 16 00231 g001
Cancers 16 00231 g002
Figure 2. Comparison of locoregional control (LRC) in patients with centrally vs. peripherally located tumors (distance to organs at risk: central airways, spinal canal, esophagus, ≤2 cm vs. >2 cm). The 2-year LRC was 94.4% vs. 64.8%.
Figure 2. Comparison of locoregional control (LRC) in patients with centrally vs. peripherally located tumors (distance to organs at risk: central airways, spinal canal, esophagus, ≤2 cm vs. >2 cm). The 2-year LRC was 94.4% vs. 64.8%.
Cancers 16 00231 g002
Cancers 16 00231 g003
Figure 3. Comparison of locoregional progression-free survival (LPFS) in patients with tumors at a distance ≤2 cm vs. >2 cm from the central airways. The 2-year LPFS was 62.4% vs. 33.8%.
Figure 3. Comparison of locoregional progression-free survival (LPFS) in patients with tumors at a distance ≤2 cm vs. >2 cm from the central airways. The 2-year LPFS was 62.4% vs. 33.8%.
Cancers 16 00231 g003
Cancers 16 00231 g004aCancers 16 00231 g004b
Figure 4. (a) Influence of gender on the maximum vector of movement for the bronchial tree (length, mm). Male patients had greater movement (median 5.7 mm vs. 3.9 mm, p < 0.05, 21 male patients vs. 14 female patients). (b) Influence of body height on the maximum vector of movement for the bronchial tree (length, mm). Tall patients had greater movement (median 5.7 mm vs. 3.6 mm, p < 0.05; cut-off median of body height [1.68 m], 16 patients with smaller height vs. 19 patients with height ≥ median). * Values that are more than 3x interquartile range below first quartile or above third quartile. (c) Influence of the body mass index (BMI) on the volume changes of the esophagus. Here, we compared organs at risk and corresponding internal organs at risk volumes. Patients with high BMI had lower volume changes (median 56.7% vs. 40.5%, p < 0.05, cut-off 25 kg/m2, 13 patients with BMI ≤ 25 kg/m2 vs. 22 patients with higher BMI).
Figure 4. (a) Influence of gender on the maximum vector of movement for the bronchial tree (length, mm). Male patients had greater movement (median 5.7 mm vs. 3.9 mm, p < 0.05, 21 male patients vs. 14 female patients). (b) Influence of body height on the maximum vector of movement for the bronchial tree (length, mm). Tall patients had greater movement (median 5.7 mm vs. 3.6 mm, p < 0.05; cut-off median of body height [1.68 m], 16 patients with smaller height vs. 19 patients with height ≥ median). * Values that are more than 3x interquartile range below first quartile or above third quartile. (c) Influence of the body mass index (BMI) on the volume changes of the esophagus. Here, we compared organs at risk and corresponding internal organs at risk volumes. Patients with high BMI had lower volume changes (median 56.7% vs. 40.5%, p < 0.05, cut-off 25 kg/m2, 13 patients with BMI ≤ 25 kg/m2 vs. 22 patients with higher BMI).
Cancers 16 00231 g004aCancers 16 00231 g004b
Cancers 16 00231 g005
Figure 5. Illustration of the respiration-dependent movement of the bronchial tree. Patient with a stage IIA adenocarcinoma of the right upper lobe. SBRT was applied up to 60 Gy in 8 fractions prescribed on the 80% isodose using VMAT. The images depict the corresponding slices of the 4D-CT scan with maximum inhalation (A) and maximum exhalation (B). In (C) (average intensity projection CT scan), the dose is shown from 60 Gy (blue) to 75 Gy (red) with the contours of the bronchial tree in turquoise (* maximum inhalation, ** maximum exhalation). In the image (D) and magnification of image (C), the gain in volume between internal organ at risk volume (IRV) and organ at risk (OAR) is marked (***). The distance between the GTV and the bronchial tree was 3 mm. Please note the relevant volume difference between OAR and IRV in proximity to the target volume. The absolute difference in volume between the bronchial tree (59.0 cm3) and its corresponding IRV (94.4 cm3) was 35.5 cm3 (relative increase in volume, 60%). The maximum difference in geometric centers between OAR and IRV was 10.1 mm. The absolute difference in maximum dose was 8.4 Gy (OAR, 62.9 Gy vs. IRV, 71.2 Gy). The absolute increase in normal tissue complication probability, when comparing OAR vs. IRV, was 11.5% (relative increase, 44.2%).
Figure 5. Illustration of the respiration-dependent movement of the bronchial tree. Patient with a stage IIA adenocarcinoma of the right upper lobe. SBRT was applied up to 60 Gy in 8 fractions prescribed on the 80% isodose using VMAT. The images depict the corresponding slices of the 4D-CT scan with maximum inhalation (A) and maximum exhalation (B). In (C) (average intensity projection CT scan), the dose is shown from 60 Gy (blue) to 75 Gy (red) with the contours of the bronchial tree in turquoise (* maximum inhalation, ** maximum exhalation). In the image (D) and magnification of image (C), the gain in volume between internal organ at risk volume (IRV) and organ at risk (OAR) is marked (***). The distance between the GTV and the bronchial tree was 3 mm. Please note the relevant volume difference between OAR and IRV in proximity to the target volume. The absolute difference in volume between the bronchial tree (59.0 cm3) and its corresponding IRV (94.4 cm3) was 35.5 cm3 (relative increase in volume, 60%). The maximum difference in geometric centers between OAR and IRV was 10.1 mm. The absolute difference in maximum dose was 8.4 Gy (OAR, 62.9 Gy vs. IRV, 71.2 Gy). The absolute increase in normal tissue complication probability, when comparing OAR vs. IRV, was 11.5% (relative increase, 44.2%).
Cancers 16 00231 g005
Table 1. Comparison of clinical/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) characteristics in patients with centrally vs. peripherally located tumors (distance to OARs (organs at risk): central airways, spinal canal, esophagus, ≤2 cm vs. >2 cm). ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status. UICC: Union Internationale Contre le Cancer, 8th edition. VMAT: volumetric modulated arc therapy. IMRT: intensity-modulated radiotherapy. 3DCRT: 3D conformal radiotherapy. GTV: gross tumor volume. The numbers (% of the patients) are given if not otherwise specified. 1 In one patient, SBRT was applied simultaneously to a central tumor (44 Gy in 8 fractions) and a peripheral tumor (55 Gy in 5 fractions), as described in our previous study [18]. Here, we decided to include this patient in the group with central tumors. The stages were cT1a and cT1b (counted as UICC stage I in the table). The radiotherapy doses (planned/applied/fractions) and GTV/PTV volumes of the central tumor are included in the table and were used for analysis. The technique was VMAT for both tumors. The dose summation for radiotherapy of both tumors was used for lungs–GTV. 2 Since this part of the study mainly focused on clinical outcomes, not on technical analysis of SBRT, we decided to include 3 patients with radiotherapy in 18 fractions [18]. As mentioned in our previous study, formally, the recent literature defines SBRT as radiotherapy in a maximum of 12 fractions [11,18]. 3 Pneumonitis: 9 patients with grade 1, 6 patients with grade 2, and 2 patients with grade 3. 4 Pearson’s Chi-squared test. 5 Mann–Whitney U test.
Table 1. Comparison of clinical/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) characteristics in patients with centrally vs. peripherally located tumors (distance to OARs (organs at risk): central airways, spinal canal, esophagus, ≤2 cm vs. >2 cm). ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status. UICC: Union Internationale Contre le Cancer, 8th edition. VMAT: volumetric modulated arc therapy. IMRT: intensity-modulated radiotherapy. 3DCRT: 3D conformal radiotherapy. GTV: gross tumor volume. The numbers (% of the patients) are given if not otherwise specified. 1 In one patient, SBRT was applied simultaneously to a central tumor (44 Gy in 8 fractions) and a peripheral tumor (55 Gy in 5 fractions), as described in our previous study [18]. Here, we decided to include this patient in the group with central tumors. The stages were cT1a and cT1b (counted as UICC stage I in the table). The radiotherapy doses (planned/applied/fractions) and GTV/PTV volumes of the central tumor are included in the table and were used for analysis. The technique was VMAT for both tumors. The dose summation for radiotherapy of both tumors was used for lungs–GTV. 2 Since this part of the study mainly focused on clinical outcomes, not on technical analysis of SBRT, we decided to include 3 patients with radiotherapy in 18 fractions [18]. As mentioned in our previous study, formally, the recent literature defines SBRT as radiotherapy in a maximum of 12 fractions [11,18]. 3 Pneumonitis: 9 patients with grade 1, 6 patients with grade 2, and 2 patients with grade 3. 4 Pearson’s Chi-squared test. 5 Mann–Whitney U test.
ParameterCentral Tumors
(n = 22 Patients)		Peripheral Tumors
(n = 56 Patients)		p-Value
Gender 0.32 4
Male16 (72.7)34 (60.7)
Female6 (27.3)22 (39.3)
ECOG (median, min, max)1 (0–2)1 (0–4)0.3 5
UICC stages 1 0.96 4
I17 (77.3)43 (76.8)
II–III5 (22.7)13 (23.2)
Planned dose 1
[Gy, median, min–max)]		60
(44–60)		55
(54–60)		0.28 5
Planned fractions 1,2
(median, min–max)		8 (3–18)5 (3–18)0.002 5
Planned dose 1
[biologically effective dose, α/β = 10 Gy, Gy, median, min–max]		105
(68.2–151.2)		115.5
(70.2–151.2)		0.001 5
Applied dose 1
[biologically effective dose, α/β = 10 Gy, Gy, median, min–max]		105
(13.13–151.2)		115.5
(70.2–151.2)		0.001 5
Applied dose < 100 Gy 1
[biologically effective dose,
α/β = 10 Gy]		6 (27.3)3 (5.4)0.006 4
Radiotherapy technique 1 0.83 4
VMAT/IMRT20 (90.9)50 (89.3)
3DCRT2 (9.1)6 (10.7)
GTV volume 1
[cm3, median, min–max]		32.55
(2.7–141.9)		14.8
(1.4–119.4)		0.17 5
PTV volume 1
[cm3, median, min–max]		90.26
(11.9–244.9)		45.0
(12.8–329.8)		0.046 5
Lungs–GTV 1, Dmean [Gy] 5.8 (1.24–11.3)3.7 (1.7–10.5)0.009 5
Lungs–GTV 1, V5Gy [%]26.9 (4.9–56.2)17.3 (5.9–49.9)0.003 5
Lungs–GTV 1, V20Gy [%]8.0 (0–15.6)5.5 (2.0–18.7)0.02 5
Pneumonitis 35 (22.7)12 (21.4)0.90 4
Table 2. Structure movement amplitudes and volume differences. Comparison of organs at risk (OARs) volumes in each respiratory phase scan and internal organs at risk volumes (IRVs) on average intensity projection (AIP) CT scan. The mean (min–max) values are presented.
Table 2. Structure movement amplitudes and volume differences. Comparison of organs at risk (OARs) volumes in each respiratory phase scan and internal organs at risk volumes (IRVs) on average intensity projection (AIP) CT scan. The mean (min–max) values are presented.
ParameterBronchial TreeTracheaEsophagusSpinal Canal
Maximum difference in geometric centers, OAR
(each respiratory phase), and IRV on AIP CT scan [mm]		5.2
(2.2–11.1)		4.2
(1.4–14.6)		5.5
(2.0–13.2)		4.3
(1.5–9.7)
OAR volumes on AIP CT scan [cm3]54.4
(34.7–85.4)		40.5
(22.3–57.2)		42.0
(25.7–74.2)		57.2
(33.5–90.0)
IRV volumes on AIP CT scan [cm3]76.4
(46.8–116.1)		48.3
(27.2–75.7)		61.5
(37.4–103.9)		65.4
(48.9–88.7)
Absolute difference,
IRV–OAR volume [cm3]		22.0
(10.5–35.5)		7.8
(2.7–18.8)		19.6
(11.4–33.7)		8.2
(−1.3–20.2)
Relative difference,
IRV–OAR volume [%]		40.9
(26.9–60.4)		19.4
(6.6–53.5)		47.5
(25.4–91.4)		16.1
(−1.4–57.4)
Table 3. Differences in normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) when comparing organs at risk (OARs) and internal organs at risk volumes (IRVs). Please see Section 2.3.2, Supplementary Figure S1 and Supplementary Table S3 for further details. The NTCPs for the bronchial tree and the trachea were estimated using the graphs for the maximum dose (in EQD2) for the bronchial tree by Dujim et al. [23]. The NTCPs for the esophagus and the spinal canal were calculated using the software, ‘RADBIOMOD’, with the Lyman–Kutcher–Burman model ([22]; please see Section 2.3.2 for further details).
Table 3. Differences in normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) when comparing organs at risk (OARs) and internal organs at risk volumes (IRVs). Please see Section 2.3.2, Supplementary Figure S1 and Supplementary Table S3 for further details. The NTCPs for the bronchial tree and the trachea were estimated using the graphs for the maximum dose (in EQD2) for the bronchial tree by Dujim et al. [23]. The NTCPs for the esophagus and the spinal canal were calculated using the software, ‘RADBIOMOD’, with the Lyman–Kutcher–Burman model ([22]; please see Section 2.3.2 for further details).
StructurePatient No.Distance between Tumor and Structure [cm]NTCP of OAR [%]NTCP of IRV [%]NTCP, Absolute Increase [%]NTCP, Relative Increase [%]
Bronchial Tree11.417.034.017.0100.0
20.063.066.03.04.8
30.326.037.511.544.2
40.023.032.09.039.1
50.045.048.03.06.7
61.135.558.022.563.4
Esophagus32.42.15.93.8181.0
70.31.54.02.5166.7
Spinal
Canal		12.20.00.00.00.0
81.8<0.01<0.010.00.0
94.1<0.01<0.010.00.0
Trachea64.14.05.01.025.0
101.24.010.56.5162.5
113.54.55.51.022.2
121.024.526.01.56.1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Habermann, F.-N.O.J.; Schmitt, D.; Failing, T.; Ziegler, D.A.; Fischer, J.; Fischer, L.A.; Guhlich, M.; Bendrich, S.; Knaus, O.; Overbeck, T.R.; et al. And Yet It Moves: Clinical Outcomes and Motion Management in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) of Centrally Located Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Shedding Light on the Internal Organ at Risk Volume (IRV) Concept. Cancers 2024, 16, 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16010231

AMA Style

Habermann F-NOJ, Schmitt D, Failing T, Ziegler DA, Fischer J, Fischer LA, Guhlich M, Bendrich S, Knaus O, Overbeck TR, et al. And Yet It Moves: Clinical Outcomes and Motion Management in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) of Centrally Located Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Shedding Light on the Internal Organ at Risk Volume (IRV) Concept. Cancers. 2024; 16(1):231. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16010231

Chicago/Turabian Style

Habermann, Felix-Nikolai Oschinka Jegor, Daniela Schmitt, Thomas Failing, David Alexander Ziegler, Jann Fischer, Laura Anna Fischer, Manuel Guhlich, Stephanie Bendrich, Olga Knaus, Tobias Raphael Overbeck, and et al. 2024. "And Yet It Moves: Clinical Outcomes and Motion Management in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) of Centrally Located Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Shedding Light on the Internal Organ at Risk Volume (IRV) Concept" Cancers 16, no. 1: 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16010231

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop