Palliative Two-Dimensional Radiotherapy of Pancreatic Carcinoma: A Feasibility Study. Issue 4 (July 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Morganti, Alessio G; Marinelli, Alfonso; Buwenge, Milly; Macchia, Gabriella; Deodato, Francesco; Massaccesi, Mariangela; Kigula-Mugambe, Joseph; Wondemagegnhu, Tigeneh; Dawotola, David; Caravatta, Luciana; Sallustio, Giuseppina; Piermattei, Angelo; Valentini, Vincenzo; Cilla, Savino
• Is Part Of: Tumori. Volume 99:Issue 4(2013)
• Page Start: 488
• Page End: 492
• Publication Date: 2013-07
• Subjects: pancreatic neoplasms -- radiotherapy -- simulation -- two-dimensional; Cancer -- Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1177/030089161309900408
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-8916

Abstract

Aims and background: The aim of the study was to analyze the dose to be administered with two-dimensional involved-field palliative radiotherapy in advanced pancreatic carcinoma with respect to current dose-volume constraints (QUANTEC). Methods and study design: The following standard regimens were evaluated: 30 Gy at 3 Gy/fraction (regimen A), 36 Gy at 2.4 Gy/fraction (regimen B), 45 Gy at 1.8 Gy/fraction (regimen C), and 50 Gy at 2 Gy/fraction (regimen D). The following constraints were considered: spinal cord Dmax <50 Gy, duodenum Dmax <55 Gy, liver Dmean <30 Gy, kidneys Dmean <15 Gy. For dose/fraction different from 1.8–2 Gy, the correction of constraints using a value of alpha/beta = 3 for late effects was considered. The calculation of dose/volume constraints was repeated for three different radiation beams: cobalt unit, 6 MV photons, and 15 MV photons. Standard field sizes were used and adapted according to the different beam types, using the parameters of our previous study. Respect of dose-volume constraints was assessed for each type of beam and treatment (dose per fractionation) in all patients. Treatments were considered acceptable in case of: 1) respect of the constraints for spinal cord and duodenum in all patients; 2) respect in >10/15 patients of constraints for kidneys and liver. Therefore, minor violations (<10%) of the constraints for these organs were accepted (in less than 5/15 patients), in consideration of the palliative aim of treatment. Results: In regimen A (30 Gy, 3 Gy/fraction), evaluated constraints were respected in all patients, regardless of the type of energy. In regimen B (36 Gy, 2.4 Gy/fraction), constraints were met in all patients undergoing irradiation with 6 and 15 MV photons. However, using the cobalt unit, kidney constraint was respected only in 5 of 15 patients. In regimens C and D (45 Gy, 1.8 Gy/fraction and 50 Gy, 2 Gy/fraction, respectively), the constraint for the kidney was respected only in 2–5 patients, depending on the energy used. Furthermore, using 50 Gy, the spinal cord constraint was not respected in 2–3 patients, depending on the beam used. Therefore, only the following treatments were considered acceptable: 1) 30 Gy, 3 Gy/fraction, regardless of the energy used; 2) 36 Gy, 2.4 Gy/fraction, only for treatments performed with linear accelerator (6–15 MV). Conclusions: The clinical benefits of radiotherapy in pancreatic tumors should not be withheld from patients treated in centers only with two-dimensional technology. Prospective trials, particularly in developing countries, would be useful to evaluate the efficacy in this setting of involved-field two-dimensional treatments using the dose and fractionation defined in this analysis.