Cardiotoxicity model-based patient selection for Hodgkin lymphoma proton therapy. (3rd August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Loap, Pierre; Orlandi, Ester; De Marzi, Ludovic; Vitolo, Viviana; Barcellini, Amelia; Iannalfi, Alberto; Dendale, Rémi; Kirova, Youlia; Mirandola, Alfredo
• Is Part Of: Acta oncologica. Volume 61:Number 8(2022)
• Page Start: 979
• Page End: 986
• Publication Date: 2022-08-03
• Subjects: Cardiotoxicity -- Hodgkin Lymphoma -- VMAT -- proton therapy; Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Treatment -- Periodicals; 616.992
• DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2022.2084639
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0284-186X

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable hematological malignancy. Consolidation radiation therapy techniques have made significant progresses to improve organ-at-risk sparing in order to reduce late radiation-induced toxicity. Recent technical breakthroughs notably include intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), which has demonstrated a major dosimetric benefit at the cardiac level for mediastinal HL patients. However, its implementation in clinical practice is still challenging, notably due to the limited access to proton therapy facilities. In this context, the purpose of this study was to estimate the benefit of IMPT for HL proton therapy for diverse cardiac adverse events and to propose a general frame for mediastinal HL patient selection strategy for IMPT based on cardiotoxicity reduction, patient clinical factors, and IMPT treatment availability. Material and methods: This retrospective dosimetric study included 30 mediastinal HL patients treated with VMAT. IMPT plans were generated on the initial simulation scans. Dose to the heart, to the left ventricle and to the valves were retrieved to calculate the relative risk (RR) of ischemic heart disease (IHD), congestive heart failure (CHF) and valvular disease (VD). Composite relative risk reduction (cRRR) of late cardiotoxicity, between VMAT and IMPT, were calculated as the weighted mean of relative risk reduction for IHD, CHF and VD, calculated across a wide range of cardiovascular risk factor combinations. The proportion of mediastinal HL patients who could benefit from IMPT was estimated in European countries, based on the country population and on the number of active gantries, to propose country-specific cRRR thresholds for patient selection. Results: Compared with VMAT, IMPT significantly reduced average mean doses to the heart (2.36 Gy vs 0.99 Gy, p < 0.01), to the left ventricle (0.67 Gy vs 0.03, p < 0.01) and to the valves (1.29 Gy vs. 0.06, p < 0.01). For a HL patient without cardiovascular risk factor other than anthracycline-based chemotherapy, the relative risks of late cardiovascular complications were significantly lower after IMPT compared with VMAT for ischemic heart disease (1.07 vs 1.17, p < 0.01), for congestive heart failure (2.84 vs. 3.00, p < 0.01), and for valvular disease (1.01 vs. 1.06, p < 0.01). The median cRRR of cardiovascular adverse events with IMPT was 4.8%, ranging between 0.1% and 30.5%, depending on the extent of radiation fields and on the considered cardiovascular risk factors. The estimated proportion of HL patients currently treatable with IMPT in European countries with proton therapy facilities ranged between 8.0% and 100% depending on the country, corresponding to cRRR thresholds ranging from 24.0% to 0.0%. Conclusion: While a statistically significant clinical benefit is theoretically expected for ischemic heart disease, cardiac heart failure and valvular disease for mediastinal HL patients with IMPT, the overall cardiotoxicity risk reduction is notable only for a minority of patients. In the context of limited IMPT availability, this study proposed a general model-based selection approach for mediastinal HL patient based on calculated cardiotoxicity reduction, taking into consideration patient clinical characteristics and IMPT facility availability.