Copenhagen, Denmark
Onsite/Online

ESTRO 2022

Session Item

Sunday
May 08
10:30 - 11:30
Room D1
Lung
Cécile Le Péchoux, France;
Peter van Rossum, The Netherlands
2230
Proffered Papers
Clinical
10:40 - 10:50
Proton-therapy and concurrent chemotherapy in stage III NSCLC: effects on hematological toxicity
Francesco Cortiula, The Netherlands
OC-0438

Abstract

Proton-therapy and concurrent chemotherapy in stage III NSCLC: effects on hematological toxicity
Authors:

Francesco Cortiula1, Lizza Hendriks2, Michelle Steens3, Safiye Dursun4, Gerben Bootsma3, Richard Canters1, Ilaria Rinaldi1, Vicki Trier Taasti5, Ruud Houben5, Kobe Reynders1, Stéphanie Peeters1, Antonio Angrisani1, Djoya Hattu1, Dirk De Ruysscher5

1Maastricht University Medical Center+, Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht, The Netherlands; 2Maastricht University Medical Center+, Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Maastricht, The Netherlands; 3Zuyderland Medical Centre, Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Geleen, The Netherlands; 4Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Maastricht, The Netherlands; 5Maastricht University Medical Center+, Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO) , Maastricht, The Netherlands

Show Affiliations
Purpose or Objective

The primary aim of this study was to assess whether intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), compared to intensity modulated photon therapy (IMRT) can reduce hematological toxicity in patients (pts) treated with concurrent chemotherapy (CCRT) for stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).

Material and Methods

Retrospective data completion and analysis of a 2-center prospectively collected series of patients with stage III NSCLC. Pts with stage III NSCLC, receiving CCRT between 06.16-02.21, and staged with FDG-PET-CT and MRI brain were eligible. Primary endpoint: incidence of lymphopenia grade (G) ≥3 in IMPT vs IMRT treated pts. Secondary endpoints: the effects of IMPT in terms of pts’ recovery after CCRT and other toxicities incidence; to investigate the association between lymphopenia and the bone marrow radiation volumes (RVs). Main exclusion criteria: invasive cancer diagnosis in previous two years, previous thoracic RT and RT dose >66 Gy. Bone marrow was defined as the sum of the following structures: sternum, scapulae, clavicles, thoracic vertebrae and ribs, delineated until the level of T12 (figure 1). RVs were retrieved from regular care RT planning. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-Square, continuous variables using t-tests or Mann-Whitney U (if applicable). Odds ratio’s were derived from logistic regression models. Alpha was set to 0.05.


Results

210 consecutive pts were screened and 169 pts were included (IMPT: n = 35, IMRT: n = 134). Median age was 66 years, 53.3% were male, 40.8% had a squamous NSCLC and 41% of pts had a WHO Performance Status (PS) =0. Median Gross Tumor volume (GTV) was 70.4 cm3. No differences in age, gender, baseline PS, GTV and tumor histology were noted between IMPT and IMRT. 98.2% of the pts received a RT dose of 60-66Gy. 46.2% of IMPT treated pts and 75% IMRT treated pts developed lymphopenia G ≥3 (Odds Ratio [OR]: 3.5, 95% CI 1.1-12.1, p=0.042). Including age, comorbidities, chemotherapy regimen, gender, disease stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/IIIC) and GTV in the multivariate analysis, IMPT confirmed to be associated with less lymphopenia (OR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.54, p=0.01). Neutropenia G ≥3 occurred in 62% and 68% in IMPT and IMRT treated pts respectively (p=0.51). This was 31% and 29% respectively for febrile neutropenia (p=0.74). Bone marrow RVs were associated with a higher risk of lymphopenia G ≥3 (V4, V5, V10 and V20, with a significance level of 0.05, 0.034, 0.023, and 0.026 respectively). IMPT was also associated with a lower rate of PS≥2 at day 21 (OR: 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.95, p=0.042) (table 1).


Conclusion

IMPT reduces the incidence of lymphopenia G≥3 in pts with stage III NSCLC treated with CCRT, due to lower bone marrow RVs. In addition, IMPT led to a faster PS recovery after CCRT, thus potentially increasing the number of patients eligible for adjuvant durvalumab.