Lady Radiologist: I
am a radiologist. This is the first case you have. It is a cancer of
the NP. I will go over the images and then I turn the stage to dr
Eisbruch. You have a CT, an axial precontrast T1, an axial
postcontrast T1 and a coronal post Gadolinium image. I will go
over the axial and coronal post Gd images, which are loaded up right
here.
As we start form the
top, as we go down into the NP, you can see a mass in the NP. In
addition there is a large RP LN right here. You can see it is
displacing the carotid laterally. We go more inferiorly. Here is
another pathologically enlarged left RP LN We continue inferiorly. As
we go to the neck we can hardly see an abnormal LN here. This is in
the JGDG chain, above the level of the hyoid bone, so this is a right
level 2 LN.
We keep going down
and we can see additional left and right level 2 nodes. In addition
there is some tumor moving down the retro - pharynx. As we come more
inferiorly, here is the hyoid bone, so any node beneath it is a level
3 node. Here we have a level 3 node at this side and this side. In
addition, we have this abnormal LN over here, which is behind, the
posterior border of the SCM muscle, a level 5 LN.
The reason why I
loaded the coronal images is because they are much better to
appreciate the skull base extension and see what is going on the the
nerves as they pass by.
We are going to
follow the golden arches of the NP. We are going to identify the
turbinates back. Now you have the NP right here at the golden arches.
You can hardly see the tumor moving through the slides. It is an
unease view to see what is going on at the skull base.
Here is the large
bulk of tumor right here. I am going to free for a moment the left
side. Here you can see the foramen ovale. Here is the cortical edge
of the foramen ovale. Running through there is the grey ribbon of the
3rd division of the trigeminal nere. So this is V3 running through
the trigeminal fat pad to the mandible.
Now look at what is
going on at the other side. You have tumor all the way up to foramen
ovale here. Here is V3 on the other side with tumor displacing it
laterally. If you look further, you can see some dural enhancement
and there is some extension of tumor into the cavernous carotid,
which is called carotid flow void and is so narrow.
So we have a NP mass,
bilateral bulky RP adenopathies, skull base extension at the level of
foramen ovale and into the cavernous sinus, and then adenopathy at
level 2 bilaterally, level 3 on the left and level 5 on the right.
Eisbruch: here what I
want to mention is: the reason why we looked at the MRI rather
than CT is quite obvious. For tumors in the base of skull the bony
anatomy obstructs the view of the soft tissues. You can see here in
this NP cancer. At the base of skull it is impossible to define what
is really the soft tissue abnormality because the bones on the CT
obstruct our view. Comparably, on the MRI it is very clear. So for
any tumor near the base of skull (NP, maxillary sinuses, others near
the base of skull) you must use MRI for the anatomic delineation of
the borders of the tumor.
Now you talked about
PET. PET is also useful. However the MRI gives us a much better view
of the borders of the soft tissue abnormalities.
In general, a very
early NP cancer starts in the fossa of rosenmuller. Here is the fossa
of rosenmuller. This is a T1 very early cancer. This is where we
expect to see it. When it is more advanced, Stage T2, extension to
the nasal cavity. Involvement of the masticator space. Here the
pterigoid muscles make it a T4. Involvement of the OP, which is
tracking down from the NP typically posteriorly into the OP, makes it
a T2 because these are still much easier to control. Comparably,
tumors that extend to the masticator space are harder to control.
This is why most recently it has been classified as a T4.
Involvement of the
pterigo palatine fossa. Here it is how to see. But on CT scan you see
the pterigoid plates. Just anterior to the pterigoid plates there is
the pterigo palatine fossa with V2, the maxillary branch of the fifth
nerve. Here there is such an involvement which means that V2 is
lackly involved and this would make it a T4.
Extension to the pons
through the clivus. Here you can see that the clivus is destroyed by
the tumor. Here it is extended to the pons. This makes it a T4. Just
the involvement of the bone without involvement through is quite
common in NP cancer and it would be easier to control compared to a
disease where the involvement is through the bone.
The coronal MRI. We
are used to look at axial slices because we use them to put our GTV
and CTV. However, coronals are very useful if you can define targets
on the coronal MRI and register the coronal MRI with a CT. For
example, the extent of the tumor as it was mentioned before into the
base of skull is better seen on the coronal. Also the chiasma and the
optic nerves, we can see them nicely on the coronal much better than
in the axial ones.
So in my institution
we define the target on the coronal and on the axial MRI. Then we
register both to the CT. What we will get is a slight difference. Red
coronal, blue will be the axial. Because we do not know which is the
gold standard, what we do is define the CT GTV, the final GTV as the
sum of both axial and coronal. This is what we think is the safest
way to look at it.
What about PET? PET
is definitely helpful. Here you can see at PET this area. It means
that the sphenoid sinus was not involved. This is just fluid.
It is also easily seen in MRI. If you are not sure when you get such
a view on CT and you are not sure if this part for example in the
sphenoid sinus is solid tumor or fluid, ask your radiologist to show
the T2 images; they would be bright if it is fluid. For example, PET
positive nodes are always included in the GTV and in the CTV1. We do
not register the PET CT and the planning CT unless the PET is
performed in the same neck position as the planning CT. For example
if the patient comes to us and he is deemed to have a PET, we do not
need to have a PET with the mask but we need to do the PET with the
same neck support that we use for the simulation. That is enough. The
problem is that patients usually come to us and PET is done. The
insurance company or medicare will not reimburse a second PET for the
same patient.
So, the other option
is to use a mutual registration of the PET and the CT. This software
exists in some planning systems but not in others. Doing
resgistration is ok for the tumor near the base of skull but if the
neck position is different, then the registration of the PET and the
CT will not be accurate.
What you can do is
simply look at the PET, see which compartment is the PET positive and
go back to the CT. Again here the level 2 node is PET positive. You
can identify it on the planning CT the anatomical abnormality which
consists of gross disease. Especially in the low neck if you try to
register PET scans that were not done exactly in the same position,
looking at the low neck you are likely to error. It is better to look
at the CT, planning CT, see this abnormal LN, it is PET positive or
not.
What about defining
the optic nerve on CT. You can see the optic nerve but take into
consideration that the optic nerves are oblique. They are coming up
to the superior orbital fissure. Having an oblique optic nerve and
axial CT scan we may miss some extent of the optic nerve. For example
here I see the optic nerve stopping here but I do not know what is
going on further. Or here for example I see part of the optic nerve
here . What is going on here. Probably it went a little bit up or
down due to the oblique course.
On the other hand if
you look at coronal MRI it is very easy to see the chiasma. You can
see it here. Then as you go anteriorly you can track each optic
nerve. Look at this on the right, left, go more anteriorly, right,
left, more anteriorly and then you can track it enter the back of the
eye globe.
If you outline the
optic nerve this way, this is the most accurate way to do it. Now of
course you see the optic nerves on axial MRI. But also axial MRI may
miss because if the axial MRI has a 3 or 4 mm thickness you may miss
some part of the optic nerve while in the coronal ones you will not
miss.
Then the outcome is
such. Here is the CT scan. Then we define the optic nerve. It is
barely seen. But once we register the optic nerve as coronal MRI you
can see it clearly and now the optic nerve that I outlined on the CT
scan is this and this is something I would not be able to see on the
CT. This is another important part. If you have something going up
between optic nerves, you need to define the optic nerves the most
accurately you can and using coronal MRI would help.
Bony windows. They
allow to show the cochleas. We do not outline just the cochleas but
also the VIII nerve which we try to spare if possible. This is
something you need to know. Shifting to bony windows you can see it
very clearly in order to spare if you can. Also the foramina which
are the typical sight of extension of NP cancer to the base of skull.
Obviously foramen ovale, foramen lacerum. We have to make sure that
we cover them in advanced NP cancer as saw previously the case that
had involvement of the foramen ovale by foramen lacerum. There is no
nerve coming in but there is a sight for extension up.
My suggestion is do
the MRI, do the CT if you have questions, go to your radiologist and
try to make sure that you define this anatomical parts.
This is the actual
case we heard about before. The important thing is that the coronal
shows us that we go to the cavernous sinus. Previously on the left it
is ok, on the right it is a clear involvement. It is much harder to
see on the axial slices.
Again going back to
the PET, define the GTV according to the PET is tricky. Because for
example in some series the CTV according to PET was in most cases
smaller than the CT based GTV. In some cases larger but most smaller.
Another series it was the same. It was only 44% smaller than the CT
based GTV. 55% of the cases it was larger.
Now why is that?
Another issue they are not completely overlapping each other. Here
the green is the CT based GTV the red is the PET based. You can see
that they are not overlapping and the question is what would you use.
My suggestion we do not know what is the gold standard. I would use
both. So for example if this is what I got (green PET and red CT
based), I would do the whole thing as my GTV. Just to make sure
because I do not know which really shows me the truth.
Now another
presentation. PET based GTV. In the tumor, the mean absolute volume
was from 22 cc all the way to 11 cc. It simply depends on what you
use. So the 22 was the CT based. Visual PET was very close but you
look at 40% of maximum SUV, 50% of SUV, or other threshold based. You
can see very different results. So you go to the PET and you go
obliquely with the mouse and you can see the tumor shrinking
enlarging depending on the window of the PET. What is really the
truth? It is hard to pin down and it is a source of errors. Of course
we need to use all the methods that we have, MRI CT PET and physical
examination.
Now the data we have
of PET MRI CT and surgical resection to verify what is the real
extent of tumor. This paper showed that they all are similar. PET was
a little bit better than the other in defining the tumor compared to
surgical specimen. But none of the systems was absolutely right and
the main deficiency (especially the PET) was in the superficial
extent of the tumor which PET did not show very well.
Here comes the
importance of the physical examination, not so much in NP cancer but
for example in OP cancer. You have tumor in the base of tongue. You
have to define where the tumor extends, passes the midline. It is
important for defining the GTV.
To have the best
definition of the PET GTV you have to use both PET, diagnostic CT
(and MRI for NP cancer) to define the GTV. The deficiency are
detected superficially. They emphasize the need to include the
results of the physical examination of the tumor.
Now about nodal
stations. They are known to you. According to the radiological
definition the upper border of level 2 is the base of skull near the
jugular fossa. However we do not need to go so high. We only need to
cover the posterior belly of the digastric because the sub digastric
nodes are above here or the jugular digastric (they are the same).
These are usually the cranial most nodes that are drained all sites
besides the NP where nodes could be higher.
For example if you go
to the RTOG atlas you will be told that the transverse process of C1
is the upper border of the N0 neck. This is true because this will be
about this level. If you go to the transverse process of C1 you will
be above the JD node. So that is ok if the neck is N0 because if
there is significant adenopathy at level 2 we are concerned about
retrograde extension to the base of skull. We need to go all the way
to the base of skull but you call it the post styoloid area.
Secondly NP cancer.
Look at this NP cancer. It has the RP nodes but this node is above
the transverse process. This is a C1 above the transverse process.
This is a junctional node. So when you go below the JN you will see
level 2 and level 5. What happens here is that the JN is the tip the
of the triangle which posteriorly goes to the posterior neck and
anteriorly to the JN. So the tip is the junctional and then below you
see anteriorly the JD posteriorly the level 5. Only the NP does it.
All other sites (OP, larynx, oral cavity) do not go to the JN. They
go to level 2 as the highest node. Because NP goes to JN and then it
can go either to level 2 or level 5 this is my level 5. Isolated
involvement of level 5 is pathognomonic of NP cancer because it can
go to the junctional and then to level 5 without going to the JN. All
other sites need big nodes in level 2 in order to have retrograde
flow to level 5.
So NP cancer. You
need to define the target all the way to the base of skull. And in
this case you can see that this node is a parotidean node. The
question is does parotidean node need to be irradiated. Do we need to
include the ipsilateral parotid in the CTV of every NP cancer? The
answer is probably not because this is quite rare. Why did it happen?
Likely due to this.
Bulky significant
adenopathy in the upper neck have a risk of not only a retrograde
flow to the base of skull but also retrograde flow to the parotids.
Because parotidean nodes drain to evel 2. Now this is not just in NP
cancer. Any cancer that has bulky massive adenopathy in level 2 puts
at risk the parotids.
Now let us go to
this. When we define the CTV target, usually it is not just one CTV.
We have the same target when the dose are the same. But here what I
wanted to show is a node between level 2 and 3 (at the hyoid level so
it is at the border between level 2 and 3). The important thing is
look at how this node merges with the SCM muscle. So this is what I
would call a radiological ECE.
I would say that
defintely likely there is significant extension into the muscle. So
as you see I outline margins into the muscle because I am concerned
about microsopic disease. The question is how much should these
margins be. Because another option is to outline the whole SCM but
this would increase both the dose to the muscle and to the skin. So
we will pay by higher skin toxicity. Now what can we do. There is the
cancer here. In the old days if 2D we would even put a bolus over
this node in order to make sure that we keep giving the full dose.
Seeking the IMRT we
do not need to put a bolus because if we define that the SC tissue is
the target and we do not get the PTV away from the skin the IMRT then
will put enough dose here.
But the question is
how much margin do we need in the muscle. There is one piece of
information. Neck dissections even with small nodes showing that the
mostly the ECE is within 5 mm. Maximum it was 1 cm away from the edge
of the tumor. So it means that 1 cm may be enough however this study
from WU included small nodes. So it is possible that with larger
nodes we need larger margins. So 1 cm margin according to this study
should be enough however with larger nodes I would include the whole
adjacent part of the muscle maybe 1.5 cm 2 cm at most.
Level 5b, especially
for NP is important. According to the atlas it is outlined. So we
have level 6 which do need in this case. Level 4 around the jugular.
Then level 5. Now how to outline level 5. Here you see this stretch
line which is arbitrary. There is no anatomical compartment here that
they stop.
They stop here
because we are not sure what to do. The truth is that level 5 what
you are concerned about is what we call the SC node. They are along a
vein which is called transverse cervical vein. The TCV is this one.
So stopping here is ok if the risk is low but in NP cancer
there are mutiple nodes. We need to cover the whole thing all the way
down here. The evidence is what I have seen for example here you can
see NP cancer with LC mets. You see this is the TCV we say before and
look at the mets. All the way down here.
This is another case
with mets here. So level 5. If the low neck is at high risk in this
NP cancer I suggest to outline level 5 all the way down here. If the
level 5 is at low risk this outline is probably ok.
What about doses to
important structures. Parotid glands. In the 90s my data suggested 26
Gy as a threshold. But once we got more information. I always
wondered about it because biological systems usually do not work.
Threshold is not a biological phenomenon. So this are the data. When
we had more data and we compared them to data from Holland where they
measured saliva output the same way we did. We found that both the
Holland and our data were very similar. I had confidence on these
data.
So what we see is
that rather than having a threshold there is a continuous drop of
saliva or reduced NTCP as we go down with dose.
26 Gy is about 25%
NTCP. So it is nice to get 26 Gy or even lower. If you can not get 26
Gy even you get 36 Gy it will better than 46 Gy. So this modern data
suggest do not look at these threshold. It is ok to put at 26 Gy mean
dose as a function. But if you can push it even lower it will be
beneficial.
If you can not get
less than 40 Gy that is fine it will be better than 50 Gy. So try to
use it as much as possible without saying if I can not get 26 Gy it
does not matter any more.
SMG. I think they are
important. Our data suggest that sparing the SM gland does help
xerostomia. Our data looking at the specific measurement of SMG out
flow had this kind of probability of toxicity, which means that
between 30 to 40 Gy there is a steep improvement. So above 40 Gy
there is no saliva. Between 40 and 30 Gy there is a steep reduction.
The aim is to get less than 40 Gy. If we go between 30 and 40 Gy it
will be great.
How can we get it. If
we do not define the SMG as organ to spare we will still be able to
spare them if they are included in level 1. However if we say give me
less than 40 or 30 Gy we will be able to do better sparing the SMG.
The important thing when we try to spare the SMG is not to reduce the
dose to level 2 which is just posterior to the SMG because the JDN
which is the most important node in the contralateral neck is right
behind the SMG. It is important not to underdose it. But you can
still get less than 40 and even 30 Gy without underdosing level 2.
The PCs. They are
quite complex. Here you can see the posterior pharyngeal wall. They
extend all the way laterally to the pterigo mandibular rafe. You do
not see it on CT but it is about here. How to see it on CT. You can
see it better on MRI. But you do not typically use MRI for pharyngeal
cancer.
Here is the Rotterdam
group. They define the constrictor just as the posterior pharyngeal
wall. They do not try to track anatomically. My suggestion: this is
simpler and it works as well as trying to define the exact anatomic
extent.
Now for research for
example looking at dose effect to relationship, defining the organ
accurately is very important. But for clinical practice if you
just define the posterior pharyngeal wall it is good enough. Try to
reduce the doses to this structures. It is quite easy. This is one
issue.
Another issue. If
there is infiltration of tumor through the posterior pharyngeal wall
for example big tonsil cancer that may go posteriorly to the
pharyngeal wall do not try to spare because of risk of submucosal
extension. This is whether the big tonsil cancer does involve the
posterior pharyngeal wall or not. You can not get it from radiology
because whether the tumor abuts the posterior pharyngeal wall or
infiltrates it radiologists will not be able to tell it. You must
examine the patient and put a finger behind the tonsil to see if the
big tonsil tumor confines to the fossa or not. So here again the
importance of physical examination.
As far as split field
versus whole neck IMRT. Typically split fields will give you better
laryngeal dose. However if you define the larynx this is in the whole
neck IMRT. If you define the larynx and give it a high weight in the
optimization system you can get it the dose to the glottis as low as
20 Gy. Now in this case you need to put the larynx giving it the way
to the target. So if the targets in the low neck are at low risk it
is ok to do this because you can achieve exactly what you will
achieve for putting the larynx block. By putting the larynx block by
default you give blocking the larynx a higher weight then the medial
part of the low neck target.
So if the low neck
has a low priority you can give the larynx a higher priority. Try to
get to 20 Gy which is what you get from having a low neck with larynx
block.
Another option. If
you do now neck is still to define the target. This allows you to
spare not just the larynx but also the inferior constrictors and the
esoophagus. You can not do it if you do not put the target because in
the low neck the jugulars as they leave the thyroid cartilage become
more medial. This is why classically the larynx block is 2 x 2 cm. If
you go too much down you may block jugular and JNs. However you
should define the target on the CT. You will be able to have BEV and
block even more than that as long as you define the target if you use
low neck beams.
As far as other doses
to the targets. CTV1 we give 70 to 71 Gy, 33 to 35 fractions at
around 2 to 2.1 Gy per fraction which is standard. What about CTV2.
We go to a high risk target which are the volume around CTV1 for the
primary and nodes at highest risk to 59 Gy which should be at 1.7 Gy
per fx. The biologically equivalent dose for 2 Gy will be 57 60 Gy.
Low risk we go to 56 Gy Which would be 1.6 Gy per fx. The BED will be
about 50 Gy.
I was in the past not
sure about such a low dose per fx 1.6 Gy. However usually we treat
this with concurrent chemo. It does add (it depends which study you
see) about 5 to 7 Gy to equivalent. So 1.6 concurrent with chemo is
ok.
Additional option. If
the patient can not get chemo. I do know the following recent data
that altered fractionation concurrent with chemo does not seem to add
anything compared to standard fractionation plus chemo. We have 2 big
studies open in RTOG. I do not anymore give altered fractionation
concurrent with chemo. If the patient can get concurrent chemo I give
him standard radiation. In my view this is what the data suggest.
If the patient can
not get chemo for some reasons you can give cetuximab. However I get
this beside the point I do not think CX is ok. We do not have enough
data showing that is equivalent to chemo. But there are enough data
suggesting that accelerated radiation is quite good. In this case
what I do is we give second fraction on friday. The second fraction
is not the whole thing but just the CTV1 boost. So if you give it
over 6 weeks we give 60 Gy to CTV1 and 2, 54 Gy to CTV3 in 30
fractions over 6 weeks. Then each friday pm we give 2 Gy only to the
CTV1 boost for 6 fractions for 6 weeks. The total will be CTV1 dose
72 Gy over 6 weeks.
So the original
DAHANCA simply give the whole fraction at the same time. But I do not
think that CTV2 really needs to be accelerated. What we really need
to accelerate is the gross tumor. So this is my suggestion. It works
about toxicity. Also as far as altered fractionation logistically
this is the easiest thing. Patient comes on friday twice rather than
2 weeks.
Critical organs dose
limits. So typically chord gets 45 50 Gy, brain stem optic nerve less
than 54 Gy. These are the limits that you see in RTOG protocols at
the standard. These are limits that were derived from the 2D era
where we treated for so many years and we had a lot of experience.
However if you
translate what we did in the 2D era to the IMRT we probably are too
conservative. For example in the past you would go to 54 Gy to the
brain stem and then blovk it and go off the brain stem. Or you would
give 55 Gy to the spine chord and then block it. Now if you say give
maximum 45 Gy to the spine chord only one voxel may receive 45 Gy.
There is small volume receiving the maximal dose. The most of the
spine chord will receive much less. Or the brain stem.
The other issue is he
dose per fraction. In the past we gave 54 Gy or 45 or 46 Gy at 2 Gy
per fx. Now the 45 Gy are given over 35 fx. Dose per fx 1.3 Gy. So
this 2 items mean that for example there is a NP tumor that abuts the
brain stem. We give the maximum 54 Gy to the brain stem. It is too
conservative. You can do a/b corrections. You have an a/b = 3 for the
brain stem. You see that the ED is over 58 Gy. So you can safely go
to 58 Gy. The 58 Gy are given to a very small part of the brain stem.
It is the maximal dose. You will still be more conservative compared
to tour experience with 2D. So for example in this case you see the
NP cancer that goes through the clivus abuting the brain stem. In
order to get 70 Gy here we had to increase the brain stem dose to 58
Gy.
Brachial plexus. You
have the RTOG atlas. Mostly it explains how you see on CT but you can
see the scalene muscles that are easy to see and the BP is between
the scalenes. If you see the scalenes my suggestion is define the
pace between the scaenes as for the BP. How at risk it is? What if
you have gross disease in the low neck? Would you limit the ose to
the BP. I do not. The reasons are that first I have never seen any B
Plexopathy, ever. I asked my colleagues at MD Anderson and others.
have you really seen a B Plexopathy? The studies on this subject are
restrospective: They include patient who had neck dissection and
complain of some shoulder abnormality or neck pain likely due to
accessory nerve damage rather than BP.
The fact is that we
do not see any damage to cranial nerves anywhere else other than the
optic nerve which is not a real nerve it is brain extension.
So I would say if you
have tumor abuting the BP a gross disease treat the tumor do not
underdose the tumor. But if you can reduce the dose to BP below 65
Gy. If there is no tumor there is no need to give dose.
How often should we
image to minimize set up deviations and redice the PTV. It seems that
we image less than something. Look at the error more than 3 mm. This
error is anything but imaging almost every day gives us 50% of times
error more than 3 mm. In fact if we do not image every day or every
other day PTV should be 5 to 6 mm. If we try to reduce toxicity by
reducing PTV to 3 mm we need to image every day otherwise the risk of
set up uncertainties is higher.
How should we image.
Shall we do cone beam CT? Is it necessary versus portal imaging? The
fact is that the difference between CBCT and PI is very small. Here
in this study the difference between them was aobut 2 mm, 1 to 2 mm.
So it is more important to image frequently than how exactly do we do
it CBCT or PI.
This is the end of
the talk I assume that people are using IMRT. We do not need to do a
didactic explanation. It seems to me that this are items that are
commonly raised. If there are more basic things that I forgot please
let me know and I will be happy to discuss. Other more complex things
I will be also happy to discuss. Any question?
Question: one
question I have is with HPV positive disease with high risk so the
patient undergoes chemotherapy. Do you think there are sufficient
data at this point to consider lower doses than what you described.
Eisbruch: this is
something that the ECOG is doing for HPV positive OP cancer. It is
possible but I think we need to wait for the results. So in general
if we go to local control. Let us say about 95% control weight for
non smoker HPV positive OP. Does it mean that we can now reduce the
intensity. Because we are so high reducing intensity we will not be
avbove it. Or maybe we will see now 80%. We do not know. It is hard
to tell it from occasional patients. We really need to restyle
it. So I Would do it before we see the mature results of the ECOG
study for example.
Question: the second
question I have is: do you have any absolute wight loss or percentage
body weight or daily shifts that recur before you resimulate the
patient?
Eisbruch: typically
we saw significant weight loss close to 10% or when we see the set
uncertainties become frequent or when the therapist tell us that the
mask does fit that well any more. Or initially there was big nodes
that shrank nicely during radiation. These are the cases we are
concerned about. We take the patient back to the simulator to make a
new mask, then we send the new CT to the dosimetrist and then we put
the same IMRT intensities on the new CT and I watch this new isodoses
qualitatevely to decide if we need to replan it or not. This are the
practical things. You can do something more. I believe that right now
we do not have good data to suggest something. At some point of time
routinely (midcourse) you need to replan. I do not think there are
good data.
Question. You have
shown a case where the node was near to the skin. You put a bolus. Is
it good to put a bolus.
Eisbruch: yes. If the
skin is at risk. I would put a bolus. Even for IMRT. My suggestion is
to put it at the simulator. So that you will realize the deficiencies
because if you forget to put bolus at simulator then it comes back
and then you tell the dosimetrist to put a virtual bolus. The virtual
bolus is perfect. But the bolus that you put on the skin is usually
not. There usually are air gaps and so forth. So if the skin is at
risk you put a bolus. Now we have a node with ECE, the skin is not
necessarily at risk. If it was post op SCM usually is out.
So the skin is not
necessarily at high risk. But if the skin is at risk we put bolus at
the simulator and do the dose calculations with the best bolus that
we could put.
Question: is there a
limit on the thickness of tissues above the node I mean people vary a
lot and you may have a vision where there is a clear definition of
the skin beyond.
Eisbruch: yes. If you
judge if the tumor went very close to the skin I would say the skin
is at risk. I would put the bolus.
Question: what are
the cases where you decide to use HypoF.
Eisbruch: only in
cases loke patients that can not use chemotherapy. So medical
oncologists say let us try CX. I would say for CX we have just one
randomized study showing benefits compared to multiple studies with
chemo. On the other hand for accelerated radiation or altered
fractionation we also have multipe studies showing benefit. So I
would prefer altered fractionation than concurrent CX at this time.
So typically the patient with bulky T2 N0 laryngeal cancer where
there is no good data about chemo. It maybe controlled. In this case
I would use altered fractionation.
Question: the one
question I have in terms of defining dose by CTV. In your contours
CTV nodal disease actually goes down to the low neck. So you have
individual nodes that you contour that are involved. Defining dose
what I am asking is: how do you define as individual node goes down
what is your dose, can it be 70 Gy? How do you extend the dose if you
have CTV2 surrounding that; that is going to receive a lower dose.
That is the hardest thing I struggle with; extending the 70 Gy dose
to the gross nodes and what surrounds them. So going all the way down
near the BP and you have nodes that are involved at level 5 and low
level 4, how do you define that dose with your simultaneous fields?
Eisbruch: if there is
small node that is PET positive but it is a small node I would go to
66 Gy which would be at 1.9 per fx. If it is a large node remote from
the main disease we give it a different name. We call it low neck
CTV1. I give it 70 Gy if it is large, 66 Gy if small.
Question: so you have
a non contiguous 70 Gy dose.
Eisbruch. yes. This
is a high risk CTV2. The gross disease I would call it separate. It
is the same with the target. The target could be CTV1. If level 2
nodes are adjacent it would be the same. If not I would call it upper
neck CTV1. In our system. We have an eccentric system.
Question: about your
dose. In your experience using monday to friday, using additional
fraction, what are the results of that.
Eisbruch: it is just
an extension of the DAHANCA. The DAHANCA data suggest that this is
good anyway. They had a randomized study. So this system has the same
results of concomitant boost at MD Anderson and HypoF, it is the
same. However my argument is that for low risk (CTV2 and 3) I do not
see a reason to accelerate. I only accelerate to CTV1. Results: the
numbers are too small to do anything.
Question: in your
publication you used 70 Gy with routine fractions. Results are good.
A question about the bolus. I have never used the bolus on LN. I just
wonder on that issue because it looks to me at 2 - 3 mm.
Eisbruch: I agree.
Usually we do not but if there are big nodes that go all the way to
the skin you need to judge. You have also the imaging and the
physical examination. Sometimes you have very big nodes right beneath
the skin. The typical way that we get the PTV is 3 mm inside because
we do not have uncertainties about. You may need to be sure that the
skin will get full dose.
These are all the
individual outlinings. Let us try to discuss what we did in this
level. I do not see a CTV1 here. The yellow are CTV2. Here I want to
say we can see the differences. About half the people put the
anterior borders CTV2 here at the anterior edge of the sphenoid
sinus. About half went into the nasal cavity. Classically for
NP cancer we put the anterior border at the posterior third of the
maxillary sinus and nasal cavity. This was done also in the IMRT era.
Now what is the reason for this. The classical definition (put the
GTV at the posterior third of NC and MS) in our era will not only
depend on CT scan, but we also have fiberoptic instruments. When
Fletcher and Million suggested this is what we need to do the only
way to assess the extension of NP cancer is looking behind the
palate. This was the only way. Now we have fiperoptic, CT, MRI, PET.
So we can be more accurate and we do not need arbitrary borders as
the posterior third of NC.
The same is with the
sphenoid. So in the past the only thing that we had was a lateral x
ray scan that showed if the bony is destroyed or not. The destruction
of the bone included the whole NP. It may include the sphenoid sinus.
But today we have more sophisticated way. So I do not think that we
need routinely to make sure that we are covering the posterior third
of the NC. My concern in treating too much of the NC is that you may
end up with some obtruction of the NC. Now it is not a major side
effect. Surgeons can reduce it. If the tumor does not extend to the
NC we can have lesser margins.
As far as the
cochleas I think that this did right. Temporal lobes were done wide.
The reason to define the temporal lobes as an organ. We know that the
hyppocampus which is the medial part of the temporal lobe is
important as far as psychological alterations (memory and like that).
Asking why we try to define the TL, the part that is adjacent to the
tumor. We ask our dosimetrist to get a fast fall off into the TL and
way off the PTV. I do not know what dose to do because I do not have
data about what is really the dose. But asking a fast fall off, the
dosimetrist can ask you give us a number. It is ok. The number can be
arbitrary. As long as you get a fast fall off from the PTV into the
TL.
This is another site.
In this case there was no gross extension to the NC. I do not think
that extending the CTV is a mistake. I think that extending to this
level is too much of the NC. Extending the CTV to the whole
masticator space especially on the right where the disease included
the masticator space (pterigoid muscles) is the right thing.
The tumor did involve
the clivus so we outluned the whole clivus as part of the CTV. Here
for example my guess is that we have to define the anterior border of
the clivus. This would be a mistake in the case that it even abuts
the clivus because typically if NP cancer that abuts the clivus there
is some involvement of the bone.
MRI will be better
than CT in defining bone involvement. Is that right. Now what I heard
is that if you do bony windows for the CT you may see better the
cortex. The MRI may show more of the bone marrow. The important thing
is if the clivus is bony involved it should be in CTV2.
Lady radiologist: we
agree with that. There is a real question about bony involvement. Tey
can not be identified on MRI. Then we woud do a high resolution CT
with bone algorithm to look for certain areas of erosion. Generally
speaking the MRI will show you involvement because what it shows is
marrow edema adjacent to it. Sometimes you can see abnormal
enhancement of the marrow right next to it. The clivus has a lot of
marrow in it. It is well evaluated by MRI.
Eisbruch: so for
example we talked about doses. You can define the CTV. This is what
we typically do. Rather than try to avoud extending CTV near critical
tissue because we are concerned about the dose to critical tissues,
wheter it is clivus here or optic nerve if necessary, I suggest the
following: if the whole orbit is at risk, I define the whole orbit as
CTV. Then I define the optic nerves. If I have some uncertainties I
will put a little margin underthe optinc nerve. I say give me 60 Gy
to the orbit. But limit the orbit nerve to 54 Gy.
So you will get cold
spot to 58 Gy because if I go to 35 fx, the 58 Gy wil be biologically
equivalent to 54 Gy. So you will get a cold volume within the orbit
for example which corresponds to the optic nerve But they do not
modify the CTV in order not to heat a structure. Just make sure you
give the optic nerve or the brain stem a higher weight in the
optimization than the target. And you will get a cold area that
corresponds to the critical organ. So my suggestion is: this case the
clivus is at risk. We define the clivus as CTV and say do not exceed
58 Gy in this case to the brain stem.
So this is another
similar case. Again the CTV, here the clivus was involved. You define
the whole clivus. This is CTV. Anteriorly we talked about the parotid
glands.I think you outlined correctly. If it is a clinical case
defining the superficial part, the part of the parotid which is not
within the target, it is correct. This is the only part you can
spare. If you do a study of dose response then the whole parotid
needs to be defined because the whole parotid participate in the
saliva. But for clinical purpose it does not need to chase the part
within the target. The part of parotid outside the target are
addicted. Those who define the parotid adequately anatomically, they
wil not be able to spare this part because obviously the treatment of
the target is more important than any reduced dose to the parotid.
I saw that we had
another slice for the base to skull. What I want to say is that in
this case the CT scan shows that the cavernous sinus seems to be
similar between right to left. In fact the only way to see cavernous
sinus involvement was by coronal MRI. So we define this on the
coronal MRI and then we register to the CT. We have the GTV; then we
define the CTV on the CT scan. We define it as a target. My outline
of the TL was rather than the whole TL in just the slices adjacent to
the target. This is what I ask the dosimetrist to spare. I assume
here would be low. But this is correct.
It will be
interesting dosimetrically to see if you define all this as TL. Ask
to spare it versus define it. The slice just adjacent to the tumor.
If sparing will be better here or here. I do not know. My guess is
that it will be better if you define a smaller target. But I am not
sure.
Hu: we have some data
about mean dose to the TL. Not a high dose. Low dose. 30 to 40 Gy.
Eisbruch: the
question is all parts of the TL are the same. My assumption is the
hyppocampus is really the most important part. It is more medial. We
need more data. We all talk about necrosis of the brain. We talked
about very subtle neuro psycological tests to see in elderly patients
who receive chemotherapy (cisplatin) id they have a hearing loss.
This is really something about which we need more data.
Do we have any lower
slice?
Now this case went
into the OP. OP is part of the CTV. CTV2 here I would say that
because know that pterygoid muscles and masticator space were
involved I prefer to include in the CTV the whole masticator space
here, rather than confining it. For example this is CTV1 (red). I
prefer to include the whole pterigoid muscles. This are one
compartment at risk in CTV2 rather than being close to. If a
compartment is involved (part of it), the whole compartment is at
risk and CTV2 or 3 should encompass it.
The neck. This is
about the level of the JN. Here it is involved grossly.
The involvement of
the low OP in OP cancer is quite common. It makes it a T2. It is not
as important as far as local control. Standard radiation can be 2D
radiation. It involves a large part of the OP. If we try to spare the
posterior PW this potentially could be a trap. We do not really know
very well how long down in NP cancer macroscopic extends. It would be
nice to spare the posterior PW but if it is involved at PET or MRI we
do not have to miss the posterior PW.
Do you want to show
the low neck at the level of the low cervical vessels?
The RP nodes are at
risk up to C3 or the hyoid. Only the lateral RP nodes are at risk. We
do not need to go as far as medially. You see where the CA is and
medially there is a small triangle of fat tissue that needs to be
covered in order to cover lateral RP nodes.
Level 1b. If you look
at the atlas the position of level 1b is right even if normally I see
it a little bit more posteriorly. NP cancer does not drain to level
1b. In case of massive involvement of level 2 we include level 1b.
If you go to the
images 73 – 75 you spare some SM gland. My question is why if there
is bilateral nodal disease you spare a section of SM gland. CTV2 is
moving around the SM gland but not on the other side.
First of all compared
to the PG which contains LN the SM gland does not contain LN. There
are no LN mets in the SM gland. The level 1b LN are anterior and
lateral to the SM gland. Theoretically you say even when level 1b is
at risk you outline around the SM gland. The probem is that doing
this we do not reduce the dose to the SM gland to a sufficient dose
that can lead us to get a minimal dose of saliva. This is why the
atlas shows the SM gland within level 1b. In BOT cancer you can have
the target medial to the SM gland and posterior (level 2) so it is
hard to get below 30 Gy.
The other questios is
if we have to include level 1b. There are no data. In general when
level 2 is involved I am concerned about level 1b.
For this case we have
bilateral neck disease. Do you even try to spare the parotids and
oral cavity.
I give the same
priority to all 3 (oral cavity, SM and PG). All of them have less
priority than the target.
As we go down to the
low neck. You can see mets here. Level 5. Here is the TCV. 2 mm about
there is a met. This area is PET negative but it is suspicious and
here we have the TCV. Below the TCV we do not need to include the
target. This may be too much. The level 5b is at risk.
I have a question
about slice 69. Is there any consensus about level 1b.
Level 1b is an
extension of facial nodes. Many of SM nodes are low facial nodes.
Especially in OC cancer SM nodes are lateral and anterior to the
gland. If they are posterior to the gland by definition they are
level 2. The compartment goes more anteriorly but I have never seen
mets so anteriorly near the mandible.
In the atlas I would
modify level 2b and the RP nodes. We need good data that show that we
do not need to go so anteriorly.
For NP cancer whis
are the constraints for temporal lobe.
There are no good
data. Anyway we have to have a steep fall off of the dose.
Contouring of
cochlea.
We go now to the
tonsil case. It is simpler. We define the PC and we try to spare
them. They are in the posterior PW.
This is a N2b case.
We have to treat the contralateral neck. If there is no involvement
of the SP and BOT we can consider sparing the contralateral neck. But
if there is significant involvement of the neck I would treat the
contralateral neck.
This is a cystic node
which is characteristic of HPV related P cancer. You can argue that
in HPV related P cancer we can reduce intensity. We can reduce the
extent of the treatment. It is safer to omit the contralateral neck
in HPV cancer. My argument is: not at all as in HPV cancer the extent
of LN mets is higher compared to smoking related cancer. Reducing
intensity in HPV cancer is ok but not reducing the extent of LN
irradiation. It is like some NP cancer: it has good prognosis but
high rate of LN mets.
