IMRT in Gynecologic Malignancies
                        Arno J. Mundt MD
                      Professor and Chair
      ...
Background
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy
(IMRT)
Computerized software used to conform
the dose to the shape of the...
Inverse process
                             Target and normal tissues
                             delineated on a planni...
IMRT




4 Field


          When cast into the patient
          Highly conformal dose distributions
          are achiev...
IMRT
First conceived in the early 1960s
Clinical implementation had to await
development of computerized software
1st pati...
IMRT
Becoming standard in many tumor sites
(prostate and head/neck cancers)
Strong evidence including randomized
clinical ...
What about Gynecology?
     Growing in popularity
     2002 IMRT Survey- 15% respondents using
     IMRT in gynecology pat...
100%                                    Cancer
                                                                2005;104:12...
IMRT Practice Survey (2004)
      Site                                      %   __
      Prostate                         ...
Disease Sites Treated
             Resident Survey
Site                               %
Head and Neck                     ...
Gynecologic IMRT
                Rationale
Improved delivery of conventional doses
  ↓Dose to normal tissues
  Small bowel...
Dosimetric (Planning) Studies
Numerous investigators have compared
IMRT and conventional RT
All have shown a benefit to IM...
To evaluate IMRT as a replacement for
    conventional whole pelvic RT (WPRT)
    Our goals were:
      To provide homogen...
Chicago Study
10 pts (5 cervical, 5 uterine)
Contrast-enhanced planning CT scan
(oral, IV, rectal contrast)
Clinical targe...
Intensity Modulated Pelvic RT
                   Planning Studies
                 ↓Volume Receiving Prescription Dose
Aut...
Dosimetric IMRT Studies
Benefits also seen in patients treated with
more comprehensive fields
  Extended Field RT
     Por...
Extended Fields (Pelvic+Paraortic)
  •10 advanced cervical cancer patients
  •IMRT compared with 2 and 4 field techniques
...
Pelvic-Inguinal Fields
• 9 vulvar pts
• IMRT vs APPA plus electron fields
• Volume of small bowel, rectum and bladder
rece...
Extended Fields (Whole Abdomen)
               MSKCC
                         • 10 endometrial cancer pts
                ...
Gynecologic IMRT
Bone Marrow Sparing Approach
Focus on small bowel and rectum
Additional important organ is bone marrow
40...
BM Sparing IM-WPRT
To evaluate the ability of IMRT to
↓volume of BM irradiated, conventional
and IMRT plans compared in te...
100
             90
             80
             70
Volume (%)




             60
             50
             40
       ...
DVH Data
Dose (Gy)         4-field Box BM-sparing IM-WPRT   p-value
                (% BM volume)   (% BM volume)
      10...
100% 95% 90% 70% 50%




Isodose lines bend away from BM (crests)
Dosimetric (Planning) Studies
Numerous investigators have also
demonstrated that IMRT may allow safe dose
escalation in hi...
Dose Escalation IMRT




A simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to high risk sites ,
e.g. +nodes (45 Gy/1.8 pelvis + 56 Gy/...
Mutic et al.
                                                   (Wash U)
                                                 ...
Alternative/Replacement for
        Brachytherapy
Very contentious issue
Highly conformal plans are possible
Unclear wheth...
Roeske, Mundt et al.
Med Physics 2000;27:1382
  On average, total dose = 79 Gy (45 Gy pelvic
  RT + 34 Gy boost) possible
...
Brachytherapy vs IMRT
Low et al. (Washington U)
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
    52:1400, 2002

Applicator guided IMRT in
...
Others have proposed using a simultaneous
integrated boost (SIB)

Guerrero et al.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;62:933...
Clinical Studies
Clinical Studies
Increasing number of clinical studies
suggest a benefit to IMRT
Reductions in acute and chronic toxicity
...
40 pts
100
                                              Cervical and Uterine Pts
90
                                     ...
NTCP Analysis
                   Acute GI Toxicity
 1
                        1
          NTCP =
0.9
                     ...
Acute Toxicity
            Pelvic/Inguinal IMRT
Beriwal et al.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:1395
15 vulvar pts
 7 ...
Acute Toxicity
   Pelvic/Paraortic (Extended field) IMRT
Gerszten et al.
Gynecol Oncol 2006;102:182
22 cervical cancer pts...
Acute Toxicity
   Pelvic/Paraortic (Extended field) IMRT
Salama J, Mundt AJ et al.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65:11...
Acute Toxicity
                               GI                         GU
                     n         g2         g3  ...
Hematologic Toxicity
Acute hematologic toxicity also reduced with IMRT

A surprise finding comparing Conventional and IMRT...
Grade ≥ 2 WBC Toxicity
   WPRT versus IM-WPRT Patients
60%

50%

40%

                                                    ...
IM-WPRT resulted in
a lower rate of decline
of WBC counts during
therapy

Brixey C, Roeske J, Mundt A
Int J Radiat Oncol B...
BM-Sparing IMRT
Led us to develop BM-sparing plans by
intentionally sparing the iliac crests
However, the iliac crests may...
Predictors of Hematologic Toxicity
37 cervical cancer pts treated with IMRT plus
Cisplatin (40 mg/m2/week)
Predictors of h...
Grade ≥ 2   Grade ≥ 2   Chemo
            n     WBC         ANC         Held

Pelvic BM V-10
≤90%         18   11%        ...
90%
             80%
             70%
             60%
             50%
                                                  ...
Chronic Toxicity
Beriwal et al.
Gynecol Oncol 2006;102:195
47 endometrial cancer pts
Postop IMRT (39 pelvis, 8 pelvic+para...
Chronic Toxicity
                            GI              GU
                  n         g2       g3     g2   g3
Pelvis...
Tumor Control
Very little data
Single institution experiences
Short followup
But promising
Cervical Cancer
                                                             Pelvic
                 n        FU       Sta...
Endometrial Cancer
                                                           Pelvic
                n       FU      Stage...
Current
Research Directions
                Guidelines/Consensus

                Multi-institutional Trials

            ...
Clinical Trials
Important to move from single institution
to multi-institutional, prospective clinical
trials

Ideally, mu...
RTOG 0418
       Preliminary Results
ASTRO 2008
58 patients enrolled (25 centers)
28% Grade ≥ 2 acute toxicity, primarily
...
Tata Memorial Hospital
         Mumbai India
Phase II randomized trial (ongoing)
Conventional RT vs IMRT
To date, 58 Cervi...
Guidelines/Consensus
Little consensus exists on how
gynecologic IMRT should be planned
and delivered
Hampers widespread im...
Controversial Issues
Optimal positioning (prone vs supine)
CTV components (?whole uterus in early
stage patients)
CTV deli...
Example: Positioning
  University of Chicago
  UCSD




                          MD Anderson


University of Colorado
RTOG-GOG-ESTRO-NCIC
   Consensus Conference
Consensus conference on target design
June 2005
CTV in the postoperative cervi...
Most exciting area of research:
     image-guided IMRT
Advances in Gynecologic RT


Standard        IMRT
                           W
RT
                           A
           ...
Key to Further Advancements

                     IMRT


                   IG-IMRT
Thank You
Imrt In Gynecologic Malignancies
Imrt In Gynecologic Malignancies
Imrt In Gynecologic Malignancies
Imrt In Gynecologic Malignancies
Imrt In Gynecologic Malignancies
Imrt In Gynecologic Malignancies
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Imrt In Gynecologic Malignancies

3,859

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,859
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
296
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Imrt In Gynecologic Malignancies"

  1. 1. IMRT in Gynecologic Malignancies Arno J. Mundt MD Professor and Chair Department of Radiation Oncology University of California San Diego La Jolla CA
  2. 2. Background Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Computerized software used to conform the dose to the shape of the target in 3D, thereby reducing the volume of normal tissues receiving high doses Better sparing of normal tissues should mean less acute and chronic toxicity
  3. 3. Inverse process Target and normal tissues delineated on a planning CT Software used to deliver the dose to the target while minimizing dose to the normal tissues Accomplished by dividing beams into small “beamlets” Intensity of each beamlet individually optimized Red = high intensity Green = moderate intensity Yellow = low intensity
  4. 4. IMRT 4 Field When cast into the patient Highly conformal dose distributions are achieved
  5. 5. IMRT First conceived in the early 1960s Clinical implementation had to await development of computerized software 1st patient treated in 1992 (prostate)* Nearly all centers in the USA now have IMRT capability Increasingly available in Europe and Asia *first gynecology patient treated in early 1997
  6. 6. IMRT Becoming standard in many tumor sites (prostate and head/neck cancers) Strong evidence including randomized clinical trials have demonstrated its benefits Significant reductions in acute and chronic toxicities (dermatitis, xerostomia, proctitis) Better tumor control rates Prostate IMRT outcomes equivalent to radical prostatectomy
  7. 7. What about Gynecology? Growing in popularity 2002 IMRT Survey- 15% respondents using IMRT in gynecology patients 2004 IMRT Survey- 35% using IMRT in gynecology patients 4th most common site treated Most rapidly growing IMRT site Mell LK, Roeske JC, Mundt AJ. Survey of IMRT Use in the United States. Cancer 2003;98:204-211 Mell LK, Mundt AJ. Survey of IMRT Use in the USA- 2004 Cancer 2005;104:1296
  8. 8. 100% Cancer 2005;104:1296 90% 80% Percent of Physicians 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004* *As of 8/04 Year
  9. 9. IMRT Practice Survey (2004) Site % __ Prostate 85% Head and Neck 80% CNS Tumors 64% Gynecology 35% Breast 28% GI 26% Sarcoma 20% Lung 22% Pediatrics 16% Lymphoma 12% Mell LK, Mundt AJ. Survey of IMRT Use in the USA- 2004 Cancer 2005;104:1296
  10. 10. Disease Sites Treated Resident Survey Site % Head and Neck 92% Prostate 81% CNS Tumors 56% Pediatrics 38% Gynecology 24% Recurrent/Palliative 24% Breast 21% GI 21% Lung 15% Lymphoma 7% Malik R, Mundt AJ et al. Tech Cancer Res Treat 2005;4:303
  11. 11. Gynecologic IMRT Rationale Improved delivery of conventional doses ↓Dose to normal tissues Small bowel, bladder, rectum, marrow Dose escalation in high risk patients Node positive Gross residual disease Alternative/Replacement for Brachytherapy Heresy! Or is it?
  12. 12. Dosimetric (Planning) Studies Numerous investigators have compared IMRT and conventional RT All have shown a benefit to IMRT Comparable or better target coverage Improved sparing of normal tissues
  13. 13. To evaluate IMRT as a replacement for conventional whole pelvic RT (WPRT) Our goals were: To provide homogeneous dose coverage of the target tissues (PTV) ↓volume of small bowel, rectum and bladder irradiated Roeske JC, Mundt AJ et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:1613-1621, 2000
  14. 14. Chicago Study 10 pts (5 cervical, 5 uterine) Contrast-enhanced planning CT scan (oral, IV, rectal contrast) Clinical target volume (CTV) = upper 1/2 of the vagina, uterus (if present), parametria, and regional lymph nodes (common/external/internal iliacs, presacral nodes) Roeske et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:1613-1621, 2000
  15. 15. Intensity Modulated Pelvic RT Planning Studies ↓Volume Receiving Prescription Dose Author Bowel Bladder Rectum ↓50% ↓23% ↓23% Roeske ↓40-63%* Ahamad NS NS ↓70% ↓** ↓** Chen ↓51%*** ↓31%*** ↓66%*** Selvaraj *dependent on PTV expansion used **data not shown ***reduction in percent volume receiving 30 Gy or higher Roeske et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:1613 Ahamad et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:42 Heron et al. Gynecol Oncol 2003;91:39-45 Chen et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51:332
  16. 16. Dosimetric IMRT Studies Benefits also seen in patients treated with more comprehensive fields Extended Field RT Portelance et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51:261 Chen et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51:232 Pelvic Inguinal RT Beriwal et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:1395 Garofalo et al. RSNA 2002 Whole Abdominal RT Hong et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:278 Duthoy et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:1019
  17. 17. Extended Fields (Pelvic+Paraortic) •10 advanced cervical cancer patients •IMRT compared with 2 and 4 field techniques •Comparable target coverage •Significant ↓volume of normal tissues irradiated ↓Volume Receiving Prescription Dose Bowel Bladder Rectum ↓61% ↓96% ↓71% Versus 2 fields ↓60% ↓93% ↓56% Versus 4 fields Portelance et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51:261
  18. 18. Pelvic-Inguinal Fields • 9 vulvar pts • IMRT vs APPA plus electron fields • Volume of small bowel, rectum and bladder receiving ≥ 30 Gy reduced by 27%, 41% and 26% • No benefit for the femoral heads Beriwal et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:1395
  19. 19. Extended Fields (Whole Abdomen) MSKCC • 10 endometrial cancer pts • IMRT vs conventional WART (with kidney blocks) • IMRT →↓dose to the bones and ↑target coverage with comparable kidney dose • Volume of pelvic bones irradiated ↓60% • Improved coverage of peritoneal cavity Hong et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:278-289
  20. 20. Gynecologic IMRT Bone Marrow Sparing Approach Focus on small bowel and rectum Additional important organ is bone marrow 40% total BM is in the pelvis (within the RT fields) ↓Pelvic BM dose may ↑tolerance of concurrent chemotherapy and the chemotherapy at relapse
  21. 21. BM Sparing IM-WPRT To evaluate the ability of IMRT to ↓volume of BM irradiated, conventional and IMRT plans compared in terms of the volume of BM irradiated Focused on the iliac crests Lujan AE, Roeske JC, Mundt AJ. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:516-521
  22. 22. 100 90 80 70 Volume (%) 60 50 40 BMSparing-IM-WPRT 30 4 Field Box 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Dose (Gy)
  23. 23. DVH Data Dose (Gy) 4-field Box BM-sparing IM-WPRT p-value (% BM volume) (% BM volume) 10 95.13 99.01 < 0.003 15 94.6 91.9 0.101 20 89.3 78.8 < 0.001 30 56.2 37.6 < 0.001 40 43.7 17.0 < 0.001 45 33.6 6.8 < 0.001 Lujan et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:516
  24. 24. 100% 95% 90% 70% 50% Isodose lines bend away from BM (crests)
  25. 25. Dosimetric (Planning) Studies Numerous investigators have also demonstrated that IMRT may allow safe dose escalation in high risk patients Exciting application is the use of IMRT to treat PET+ node using dose painting
  26. 26. Dose Escalation IMRT A simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to high risk sites , e.g. +nodes (45 Gy/1.8 pelvis + 56 Gy/2.24 Gy involved site) Lujan AE, Mundt AJ, Roeske JC. Med Phys 2001;28:1262
  27. 27. Mutic et al. (Wash U) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55:28-35 • SIB technique to irradiate PA+ cervical cancer patients • PA region receives 50.4/1.53 daily fractions and the involved PA nodes receives 59.4 Gy/1.8 Gy daily fractions
  28. 28. Alternative/Replacement for Brachytherapy Very contentious issue Highly conformal plans are possible Unclear whether biologically equivalent
  29. 29. Roeske, Mundt et al. Med Physics 2000;27:1382 On average, total dose = 79 Gy (45 Gy pelvic RT + 34 Gy boost) possible With smaller margins, higher doses possible 0.25 cm margin → 84 Gy or higher
  30. 30. Brachytherapy vs IMRT Low et al. (Washington U) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:1400, 2002 Applicator guided IMRT in place of brachytherapy Applicator provides immobilization and spatial registration of the cervix, uterus and normal tissues Treat using HDR schedules Top=IMRT, bottom=HDR brachy
  31. 31. Others have proposed using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) Guerrero et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;62:933 SIB approach 45 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions (pelvis) 70 Gy in 2.8 Gy fractions (cervical tumor) Radiobiologically ≈ 45 Gy + 30 Gy HDR (5 fx) Better bowel and bladder sparing Shortens overall treatment to 5 weeks
  32. 32. Clinical Studies
  33. 33. Clinical Studies Increasing number of clinical studies suggest a benefit to IMRT Reductions in acute and chronic toxicity Same or better tumor control However, follow-up remains short and patient numbers are limited
  34. 34. 40 pts 100 Cervical and Uterine Pts 90 IM-pelvic RT +/- Brachy 80 40 matched conventional pts 70 60 IM-WPRT 50 WPRT 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 0 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
  35. 35. NTCP Analysis Acute GI Toxicity 1 1 NTCP = 0.9 3 .2 ⎛ 410 ⎞ 0.8 1+ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜V ⎟ ⎝ 100 ⎠ 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Volume (cc) Roeske JC, Mundt AJ et al. Radiother Oncol 2003;56:1354)
  36. 36. Acute Toxicity Pelvic/Inguinal IMRT Beriwal et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:1395 15 vulvar pts 7 preop (46 Gy), 8 postop (50.4 Gy) Well tolerated (only 1 acute grade 3 toxicity) Grade 1 2 3 4 GI 60% 20% 6% 0% GU 6% 13% 0% 0% Skin 26% 73% 0% 0%
  37. 37. Acute Toxicity Pelvic/Paraortic (Extended field) IMRT Gerszten et al. Gynecol Oncol 2006;102:182 22 cervical cancer pts 45 Gy/1.8 Gy fractions + 55 Gy/2.2 Gy fractions to +PET nodes All received concomitant cisplatin Low rates of acute toxicity Grade 1 2 3 4 GI 38% 10% 0% 0% GU 24% 10% 0% 0% Skin 5% 10% 0% 0%
  38. 38. Acute Toxicity Pelvic/Paraortic (Extended field) IMRT Salama J, Mundt AJ et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65:1170 13 pts (8 endometrial, 5 cervical) 45 Gy/1.8 Gy fractions 12 chemo (5 pre-RT, 5 concomitant, 5 post-RT No grade 3 GU or GI acute toxicities Grade 1 2 3 4 GI Diarrhea 15% 84% 0% 0% Nausea 38% 54% 0% 0% GU Dysuria 15% 7% 0% 0%
  39. 39. Acute Toxicity GI GU n g2 g3 g2 g3 Pelvis Mundt 40 60% 0% 10% 0% Chen 33 24% 0% 12% 0% Beriwal 47 70% 0% 4% 0% Pelvic-Paraortic Salama 13 84% 0% 7% 0% Beriwal 36 69% 3% 19% 3% Gerszten 22 10% 0% 10% 0% Pelvic-Inguinal Beriwal 15 20% 6% 13% 0% Mundt et al. Red J 2002;52 1330 Beriwal et al. Red J 2006;64:1395 Chen et al. Red J 2007;67:1438 Beriwal et al. Red J 2007;68:166 Beriwal et al. Gyne Oncol 2006;102:1395 Gerszten Gyne Oncol 2006;102:182 Salama et al. Red J 2006;65:1170
  40. 40. Hematologic Toxicity Acute hematologic toxicity also reduced with IMRT A surprise finding comparing Conventional and IMRT pts BM not intentionally spared. But it received less dose due to highly conformal plans Brixey C, Roeske JC, Mundt AJ. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54:1388-93, 2002.
  41. 41. Grade ≥ 2 WBC Toxicity WPRT versus IM-WPRT Patients 60% 50% 40% WPRT 30% IM-WPRT 20% 10% 0% RT Alone RT + Chemo p = 0.08 p = 0.82 Brixey et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:1388-93, 2002
  42. 42. IM-WPRT resulted in a lower rate of decline of WBC counts during therapy Brixey C, Roeske J, Mundt A Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:1388-93, 2002
  43. 43. BM-Sparing IMRT Led us to develop BM-sparing plans by intentionally sparing the iliac crests However, the iliac crests may not be the structures to avoid
  44. 44. Predictors of Hematologic Toxicity 37 cervical cancer pts treated with IMRT plus Cisplatin (40 mg/m2/week) Predictors of hematologic toxicity and chemotherapy delivery: Total Pelvic Bone Marrow V10 and V20 Lumbosacral Spine Bone Marrow V10 and V20 Volume of the iliac crests irradiated not correlated with hematologic toxicity Mell LK, Roeske JC, Mundt AJ Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;66:1356
  45. 45. Grade ≥ 2 Grade ≥ 2 Chemo n WBC ANC Held Pelvic BM V-10 ≤90% 18 11% 74% 16% >90% 19 74% 32% 48% p < 0.01 p = 0.09 p = 0.08 Pelvic BM V-20 ≤75% 21 24% 14% 24% >75% 16 68% 25% 44% p < 0.01 p = 044 p = 0.20
  46. 46. 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% IM-WPRT 40% WPRT 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 1 2 3 On multivariate analysis controlling for age, chemo, stage and site, IMRT remained statistically significant ( p = 0.01; OR = 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.04, 0.67)
  47. 47. Chronic Toxicity Beriwal et al. Gynecol Oncol 2006;102:195 47 endometrial cancer pts Postop IMRT (39 pelvis, 8 pelvic+paraortic) Median follow-up = 20 months SBO Grade 1 2 3 4 GI 28% 0% 2% 0% GU 14% 0% 0% 0% 3-year actuarial grade ≥2 toxicity = 3.3%
  48. 48. Chronic Toxicity GI GU n g2 g3 g2 g3 Pelvis Mundt 35 2.8% 0% 0% 0% Chen 33 0% 0% 0% 3% Beriwal 47 0% 0% 0% 0% Pelvic-Paraortic Beriwal 36 2.7% 5.5% 0% 0% Mundt et al. Red J 2003;56:1354 Chen et al. Red J 2007;67:1438 Beriwal et al. Gyne Oncol 2006;102:1395 Beriwal et al. Red J 2006;64:1395
  49. 49. Tumor Control Very little data Single institution experiences Short followup But promising
  50. 50. Cervical Cancer Pelvic n FU Stage DFS Control Intact Cervix Kochanski 44 23 m I-IIA 81% 93% IIB-IIIB 53% 67% Beriwal 36 18 m IB-IVA 51% 80% Postoperative Cervix Kochanski 18 21 m I-II (node+) 79% 94% Chen 35 35 m I-II (node+) NS 93% Kochanski et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:214 Beriwal et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68:166 Chen et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51:332
  51. 51. Endometrial Cancer Pelvic n FU Stage DFS Control Knab 31 24 m I-III 84% 100% Beriwal 47 20 m I-III 84% 100% Knab et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;60:303 Beriwal et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;102:195
  52. 52. Current Research Directions Guidelines/Consensus Multi-institutional Trials Image-Guidance
  53. 53. Clinical Trials Important to move from single institution to multi-institutional, prospective clinical trials Ideally, multi-national studies given incidence of cervical cancer outside of USA
  54. 54. RTOG 0418 Preliminary Results ASTRO 2008 58 patients enrolled (25 centers) 28% Grade ≥ 2 acute toxicity, primarily Gastrointestinal Majority of CTVs drawn per protocol
  55. 55. Tata Memorial Hospital Mumbai India Phase II randomized trial (ongoing) Conventional RT vs IMRT To date, 58 Cervical Cancer pts Grade 2 or higher GI, GU, neutropenia Conventional: 28%, 10% and 10% IMRT: 14%, 3%, and 3% 14 month median followup: No difference in response or tumor control
  56. 56. Guidelines/Consensus Little consensus exists on how gynecologic IMRT should be planned and delivered Hampers widespread implementation Hampers development of multi- institutional clinical trials
  57. 57. Controversial Issues Optimal positioning (prone vs supine) CTV components (?whole uterus in early stage patients) CTV delineation Optimal CTV-PTV margin Organ motion issues Which normal tissues should be avoided? Optimal beam configuration. Optimal beam energy. Et cetera, et cetera…..
  58. 58. Example: Positioning University of Chicago UCSD MD Anderson University of Colorado
  59. 59. RTOG-GOG-ESTRO-NCIC Consensus Conference Consensus conference on target design June 2005 CTV in the postoperative cervix or uterine patient Guideline for the current RTOG trial Atlas on RTOG website Published in the Red Journal
  60. 60. Most exciting area of research: image-guided IMRT
  61. 61. Advances in Gynecologic RT Standard IMRT W RT A L L Benefits
  62. 62. Key to Further Advancements IMRT IG-IMRT
  63. 63. Thank You
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×