Functional lung imaging in thoracic tumor radiotherapy: Application and progress

Advances in CT-based lung function imaging for thoracic radiotherapy

The objective of this review is to examine the potential benefits and challenges of CT-based lung function imaging in radiotherapy over recent decades. This includes reviewing background information, defining related concepts, classifying and reviewing existing studies, and proposing directions for further investigation. The lung function imaging techniques reviewed herein encompass CT-based methods, specifically utilizing phase-resolved four-dimensional CT (4D-CT) or end-inspiratory and end-expiratory CT scans, to delineate distinct functional regions within the lungs. These methods extract crucial functional parameters, including lung volume and ventilation distribution, pivotal for assessing and characterizing the functional capacity of the lungs. CT-based lung ventilation imaging offers numerous advantages, notably in the realm of thoracic radiotherapy. By utilizing routine CT scans, additional radiation exposure and financial burdens on patients can be avoided. This imaging technique also enables the identification of different functional areas of the lung, which is crucial for minimizing radiation exposure to healthy lung tissue and predicting and detecting lung injury during treatment. In conclusion, CT-based lung function imaging holds significant promise for improving the effectiveness and safety of thoracic radiotherapy. Nevertheless, challenges persist, necessitating further research to address limitations and optimize clinical utilization. Overall, this review highlights the importance of CT-based lung function imaging as a valuable tool in radiotherapy planning and lung injury monitoring.

Automatic planning for functional lung avoidance radiotherapy based on function-guided beam angle selection and plan optimization

Objective.This study aims to develop a fully automatic planning framework for functional lung avoidance radiotherapy (AP-FLART).Approach.The AP-FLART integrates a dosimetric score-based beam angle selection method and a meta-optimization-based plan optimization method, both of which incorporate lung function information to guide dose redirection from high functional lung (HFL) to low functional lung (LFL). It is applicable to both contour-based FLART (cFLART) and voxel-based FLART (vFLART) optimization options. A cohort of 18 lung cancer patient cases underwent planning-CT and SPECT perfusion scans were collected. AP-FLART was applied to generate conventional RT (ConvRT), cFLART, and vFLART plans for all cases. We compared automatic against manual ConvRT plans as well as automatic ConvRT against FLART plans, to evaluate the effectiveness of AP-FLART. Ablation studies were performed to evaluate the contribution of function-guided beam angle selection and plan optimization to dose redirection.Main results.Automatic ConvRT plans generated by AP-FLART exhibited similar quality compared to manual counterparts. Furthermore, compared to automatic ConvRT plans, HFL mean dose,V20, andV5were significantly reduced by 1.13 Gy (p< .001), 2.01% (p< .001), and 6.66% (p< .001) respectively for cFLART plans. Besides, vFLART plans showed a decrease in lung functionally weighted mean dose by 0.64 Gy (p< .01),fV20by 0.90% (p= 0.099), andfV5by 5.07% (p< .01) respectively. Though inferior conformity was observed, all dose constraints were well satisfied. The ablation study results indicated that both function-guided beam angle selection and plan optimization significantly contributed to dose redirection.Significance.AP-FLART can effectively redirect doses from HFL to LFL without severely degrading conventional dose metrics, producing high-quality FLART plans. It has the potential to advance the research and clinical application of FLART by providing labor-free, consistent, and high-quality plans.

Efficacy and Safety in Proton Therapy and Photon Therapy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Importance

Radiotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Proton therapy has unique physical properties and higher relative biological effectiveness. However, whether proton therapy has greater benefit than photon therapy is still unclear.

Objective

To evaluate whether proton was associated with better efficacy and safety outcomes, including dosimetric, prognosis, and toxic effects outcomes, compared with photon therapy and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of proton therapy singly.

Data Sources

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SinoMed, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases was conducted for articles published through November 25, 2021, and updated to March 25, 2023.

Study Selection

For the comparison of proton and photon therapy, studies including dosimetric, prognosis, and associated toxic effects outcomes were included. The separate evaluation of proton therapy evaluated the same metrics.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data on study design, individual characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. If I2 was greater than 50%, the random-effects model was selected. This meta-analysis is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were organs at risk (OARs) dosimetric outcomes, prognosis (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], and objective response rate [ORR]), and radiation-related toxic effects.

Results

A total of 45 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For dosimetric analysis, proton therapy was associated with significantly reduced OARs dose. Meta-analysis showed that photon therapy was associated with poor OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61; I2 = 11%), but no difference in PFS was observed. Subgroup analysis showed worse OS (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.78; I2 = 34%) and PFS (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; I2 = 7%) in the radical therapy group with photon therapy. The pathological complete response rate was similar between groups. Proton therapy was associated with significantly decreased grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis and pericardial effusion, and grade 4 or higher lymphocytopenia. Single-rate analysis of proton therapy found 89% OS and 65% PFS at 1 year, 71% OS and 56% PFS at 2 years, 63% OS and 48% PFS at 3 years, and 56% OS and 42% PFS at 5 years. The incidence of grade 2 or higher radiation esophagitis was 50%, grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis was 2%, grade 2 or higher pleural effusion was 4%, grade 2 or higher pericardial effusion was 3%, grade 3 or higher radiation esophagitis was 8%, and grade 4 or higher lymphocytopenia was 17%.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this meta-analysis, proton therapy was associated with reduced OARs doses and toxic effects and improved prognosis compared with photon therapy for esophageal cancer, but caution is warranted. In the future, these findings should be further validated in randomized clinical trials.

4DCT ventilation function image-based functional lung protection for esophageal cancer radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

4DCT (four-dimensional computed tomography) can effectively obtain functional lung ventilation images for patients and integrate them into radiotherapy treatment planning. Studies have not been performed on esophageal cancer, and there is no clear consensus on the optimal functional lung threshold for functional lung.

METHODS

Functional lung images were generated for 11 patients with esophageal cancer. The correlation between the dose-volume parameters of functional lung (FL) as defined by different thresholds and the change of PFT/PDFT (pulmonary [diffusion] function test) metrics before and after radiotherapy were evaluated. FL-sparing planning was generated for each patient to preserve the functional lung and compared to conventional anatomical CT (non-sparing) planning.

RESULTS

There was a significant positive correlation between the FL0.8 (defined Jacobian value ≤ 0.8), FL0.84, and FL0.9 dose-volume parameters and ΔFEV1/FVC (reduction before and after radiotherapy), and the FL0.8‑V₃₀ correlation was the strongest (r = 0.819, P < 0.01). The FL-sparing planning had a target area conformity index and homogeneity index comparable to the non-sparing planning (P > 0.05). For FL, the FL-sparing planning achieved lower FL-MLD (6.30 ± 2.14 Gy vs. 7.83 ± 2.70 Gy), V₁₀ (17.13 ± 7.70% vs. 27.40 ± 9.48%), and V₂₀ (6.96 ± 3.85% vs. 11.63 ± 7.19%) compared to the non-sparing planning (P < 0.05), while heart and spinal cord doses were not significantly different between the two planning groups.

CONCLUSION

The 4DCT-based FL irradiation dose for esophageal cancer was significantly associated with a decrease in FEV1/FVC. The optimal FL defined as a Jacobian value ≤ 0.8 or about 21% of the whole lung volume may be a good choice. FL-sparing planning significantly reduced the FL dose without compromising target area coverage.