Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We compared two imaging biomarkers for dose-escalation in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Treatment plans boosting metabolically active sub-volumes defined by FDG-PET or hypoxic sub-volumes defined by HX4-PET were compared with boosting the entire tumour. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten NSCLC patients underwent FDG- and HX4-PET/CT scans prior to radiotherapy. Three isotoxic dose-escalation plans were compared per patient: plan A, boosting the primary tumour (PTVprim); plan B, boosting sub-volume with FDG >50% SUVmax (PTVFDG); plan C, boosting hypoxic volume with HX4 tumour-to-background >1.4 (PTVHX4). RESULTS: Average boost volumes were 507 ± 466 cm(3) for PTVprim, 173 ± 127 cm(3) for PTVFDG and 114 ± 73 cm(3) for PTVHX4. The smaller PTVHX4 overlapped on average 87 ± 16% with PTVFDG. Prescribed dose was escalated to 87 ± 10 Gy for PTVprim, 107 ± 20 Gy for PTVFDG, and 117 ± 15 Gy for PTVHX4, with comparable doses to the relevant organs-at-risk (OAR). Treatment plans are available online (https://www.cancerdata.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.07.013). CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation based on metabolic sub-volumes, hypoxic sub-volumes and the entire tumour is feasible. Highest dose was achieved for hypoxia plans, without increasing dose to OAR. For most patients, boosting the metabolic sub-volume also resulted in boosting the hypoxic volume, although to a lower dose, but not vice versa.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Even et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: