Clinical Investigation
Probabilities of Radiation Myelopathy Specific to Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy to Guide Safe Practice

Presented in part in abstract form at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), Miami, FL, Oct 2-6, 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.05.007Get rights and content

Purpose

Dose-volume histogram (DVH) results for 9 cases of post spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) radiation myelopathy (RM) are reported and compared with a cohort of 66 spine SBRT patients without RM.

Methods and Materials

DVH data were centrally analyzed according to the thecal sac point maximum (Pmax) volume, 0.1- to 1-cc volumes in increments of 0.1 cc, and to the 2 cc volume. 2-Gy biologically equivalent doses (nBED) were calculated using an α/β = 2 Gy (units = Gy2/2). For the 2 cohorts, the nBED means and distributions were compared using the t test and Mann-Whitney test, respectively. Significance (P<.05) was defined as concordance of both tests at each specified volume. A logistic regression model was developed to estimate the probability of RM using the dose distribution for a given volume.

Results

Significant differences in both the means and distributions at the Pmax and up to the 0.8-cc volume were observed. Concordant significance was greatest for the Pmax volume. At the Pmax volume the fit of the logistic regression model, summarized by the area under the curve, was 0.87. A risk of RM of 5% or less was observed when limiting the thecal sac Pmax volume doses to 12.4 Gy in a single fraction, 17.0 Gy in 2 fractions, 20.3 Gy in 3 fractions, 23.0 Gy in 4 fractions, and 25.3 Gy in 5 fractions.

Conclusion

We report the first logistic regression model yielding estimates for the probability of human RM specific to SBRT.

Introduction

The Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) report was published with the intent to summarize modern radiation therapy dose-volume histogram (DVH) outcome data, and provide evidence-based guidelines for normal tissue tolerance (1) One of the challenges for the spinal cord analysis was the lack of DVH-based data specific to radiation myelopathy (RM) cases (2). They were essentially unable to make evidence-based recommendations for spinal cord tolerance specific to hypofractionated modern radiation therapy, as per stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) practice (2).

The major features that separates SBRT (>5 Gy/fraction) from conventional radiation (≤5 Gy/fraction) treatments are: (1) the delivery of very high dose per fraction radiation in a single, or a few fractions (typically up to 5), to yield a biologically equivalent dose (BED) that would otherwise be considered radical/curative (3); (2) the inherent sensitivity of the dose distribution secondary to the steep dose gradient beyond the target volume, such that millimeter positional variations may yield a delivered dose to an adjacent organ at risk (OAR) greater than what was expected (4); and (3) as both the tumor tissue and normal tissues are more sensitive to high dose per fraction radiation, there is greater potential for tumor response and normal tissue complications (5).

One of the most critical and dose-limiting organs at risk (OAR) for safe SBRT practice for any target—be it spine, liver, or lung—is the spinal cord. The lack of evidence-based spinal cord dose limits specific to SBRT practice is likely why we have been witnessing the re-emergence of the feared late toxicity of radiation-induced myelopathy (RM), which has been otherwise considered a rare toxicity of the past secondary to more crude radiation therapy. There are now 9 known cases of RM directly attributable to spine SBRT in patients with no prior history of radiation exposure. Through a multi-institutional collaboration, we analyzed the actual DVH data for each RM case, and compared them to a cohort of patients treated with spine SBRT who had not developed RM. The data were modeled using logistic regression to generate a probability profile for RM specific to SBRT to guide safe practice.

Section snippets

RM cases

The diagnosis of RM is a diagnosis of exclusion and defined as neurologic signs and symptoms consistent with radiation damage in the form of necrosis to the segment of the spinal cord irradiated, without MRI evidence of recurrent or progressive tumor affecting the spinal cord (6). Clinical and DVH data from 9 RM cases attributed to spine SBRT were identified based on a multi-institutional and international collaboration and included in this analysis. Data were acquired under local institutional

Results

Tumor and patient characteristics for the 66 controls are shown in Table 1. The median follow-up for the entire control group was 15 months (range, 4-29 months). No patient in the control group or RM group had been exposed to prior radiation. The clinical details for the first 5 RM patients have been described in our previous report and summarized in Table 2 (5). Patients 6, 7, 8, and 9 represent 4 new cases with a summary also in Table 2, and we provide a brief clinical description in the

Discussion

RM is a late toxicity secondary to overdosing the spinal cord, and has been virtually unheard of in the modern era of 3-dimensional conformal conventionally fractionated (1.8-3.0 Gy/fraction) radiation therapy. This devastating late effect has re-emerged as a direct result of SBRT practice, where high-dose radiation is delivered adjacent to the spinal cord to be spared. Reasons why we have observed 9 cases of RM to date are likely the following: (1) a lack of understanding of tolerance to the

Conclusion

We report logistic estimates for the probability of RM specific to 1- to 5-fraction SBRT based on the thecal sac contour and delivery using a dedicated SBRT unit. Dose within small volumes of spinal cord predicts the likelihood of RM post-SBRT, and we report doses that yield 1%-5% risks of RM. For a risk of RM of less than 5%, we recommend limiting the thecal sac Pmax volume dose to 12.4 Gy in a single fraction, 17.0 Gy in 2 fractions, 20.3 Gy in 3 fractions, 23.0 Gy in 4 fractions, and 25.3 Gy

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

Conflict of interest: none.

View full text