Key result
ISRT is linked to a ~50% lower mean heart dose compared to IFRT.
Why the study?
Radiation-induced heart disease is a common cause of death in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors after radiotherapy, but comparative dosimetric data for different radiotherapy techniques are needed to assess potential cardiac risk.
Does involved site radiotherapy (ISRT) compared to involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) improve cardiac dosimetric parameters in young patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma?
Observational (n=40)
No
Does involved site radiotherapy (ISRT) compared to involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) improve cardiac dosimetric parameters in young patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma?
ISRT reduces the mean heart dose compared to IFRT, but IFRT may offer lower maximum heart doses and better dose homogeneity, highlighting a dosimetric trade-off in minimizing radiation-induced heart disease risk.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Dosimetric trade-offs favor IFRT or ISRT depending on heart dose metric in pediatric HL planning; leaves open optimal technique selection before clinical adoption.
Purpose: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is one of the most frequent malignancies among pediatric patients. One of the common causes of death in HL survivors after radiation therapy (RT), is radiation-induced heart disease (RIHD). The aim of this study was to compare several dosimetric parameters for two methods of early stage Hodgkin lymphoma radiotherapy with reference to potential risk of RIHD. Materials and Methods: Using a series of computed tomography slices of 40 young patients, treatment planning was done in two methods of HL RT, including involved field (IFRT) and involved site (ISRT) in doses of 20, 30, and 35 Gy. Contouring of clinical target volume as well as the organs at risk, including the heart, was performed by a radiation oncologist. The mean and maximum dose of heart (D heart-mean and D heart-max ), the volume of heart receiving a dose more than 25 Gy (V25), and the standard deviation of dose as a dose homogeneity index in heart, were used to compare the RIHD risk. Results: The mean value for D heart-mean in ISRT method in all doses was less compare to IFRT. Maximum reduction in mean value of D heart-mean occurred at moving from 30 Gy IFRT to ISRT by 9.53 Gy (p < 0.001) and minimum was between 35 Gy IFRT and ISRT. The mean value for D heart-max was fewer in IFRT rather than ISRT and the maximum difference was between 35 Gy IFRT and ISRT (1.35 Gy). The mean of V25 of heart was 26.66% and 23.74% in 35 Gy IFRT and ISRT, respectively, and dose distribution was more homogeneous in IFRT. Conclusions: If D heart-max and V25 of heart or homogeneity of dose distribution in heart are considered as determining factors in RIHD, then IFRT can be considered optimum, especially in 35 Gy IFRT; while, assuming the D heart-mean as the most important factor in RIHD, superiority of ISRT over IFRT is observed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alibeyki et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Early stage Hodgkin lymphoma (n=40). Involved site radiotherapy (ISRT) vs. Involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) was evaluated on Mean dose to the heart (Dheart-mean) at 30 Gy (MD -9.53 Gy, p=<0.001). Involved site radiotherapy (ISRT) significantly reduced the mean dose to the heart compared to IFRT, with a maximum reduction of 9.53 Gy at a prescribed dose of 30 Gy (p < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: