Open Access

Exclusion of emphysematous lung from dose-volume estimates of risk improves prediction of radiation pneumonitis

  • Yasuki Uchida1,
  • Takuya Tsugawa2,
  • Sachiko Tanaka-Mizuno3, 4,
  • Kazuo Noma5,
  • Ken Aoki2,
  • Wataru Shigemori1,
  • Hiroaki Nakagawa1,
  • Daisuke Kinose1,
  • Masafumi Yamaguchi1,
  • Makoto Osawa1, 6,
  • Emiko Ogawa1, 7 and
  • Yasutaka Nakano1Email author
Radiation Oncology201712:160

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-017-0891-z

Received: 29 June 2017

Accepted: 12 September 2017

Published: 2 October 2017

Abstract

Background

The risk factors for radiation pneumonitis (RP) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are unclear. Mean lung dose (MLD) and percentage of irradiated lung volume are common predictors of RP, but the most accurate dosimetric parameter has not been established. We hypothesized that the total lung volume irradiated without emphysema would influence the onset of RP.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 100 patients who received radiotherapy for lung cancer. RP was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03). We quantified low attenuation volume (LAV) using quantitative computed tomography analysis. The association between RP and traditional dosimetric parameters including MLD, volume of the lung receiving a dose of ≥2 Gy, ≥ 5 Gy, ≥ 10 Gy, ≥ 20 Gy, and ≥30 Gy, and counterpart measurements of the lung without LAV, were analyzed by logistic regression. We compared each dosimetric parameter for RP using multiple predictive performance measures including area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI).

Results

Of 100 patients, RP of Grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was diagnosed in 24, 12, 13, 1, and 1 patients, respectively. Compared with traditional dosimetric parameters, counterpart measurements without LAV improved risk prediction of symptomatic RP. The ratio of the lung without LAV receiving ≥30 Gy to the total lung volume without LAV most accurately predicted symptomatic RP (AUC, 0.894; IDI, 0.064).

Conclusion

Irradiated lung volume without LAV predicted RP more accurately than traditional dosimetric parameters.

Keywords

Radiation pneumonitisChronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseLow attenuation volumeDosimetric parameterLung cancer

Background

Smoking is a major cause of both lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Whether emphysematous lesion is a risk factor for radiation pneumonitis (RP) after radiotherapy (RT) is an important clinical problem, but the results obtained so far have been controversial. Some studies showed that COPD is a risk factor for RP [14], while others reported that RP was milder in patients with more severe COPD than in patients with normal lung function [5, 6]. There was also a report that COPD does not influence RP [7]. In that study, a scoring system similar to the modified Goddard system was used to evaluate the association between RP and emphysema [7], but could not assess the potential influence of emphysematous lesions within the irradiation field on RP. The relationship between RP and emphysematous lesions within the irradiation field has not been examined.

Mean lung dose (MLD) and the percentage of lung volume receiving 20 Gy or more (V20%) are the most commonly recognized traditional dosimetric parameters associated with risk for RP [813]. However, a best dosimetric parameter for RP has not been determined.

The purposes of this study were twofold. First, to elucidate whether COPD is a risk factor for RP after RT in lung cancer patients, we examined the relationship between RP and dosimetric parameters associated with emphysematous lesions within the irradiation field. Second, we compared their predictive performances to determine which dosimetric parameter had the most predictive ability for RP.

Materials and Methods

Selection of participants

Patients who received RT for lung cancer at our institution between June 2010 and July 2015 (N = 100) were retrospectively selected. Inclusion criteria were predefined as follows: first time receiving RT; total irradiation dose >30 Gy; pneumonectomy not performed within 5 months after the RT or before the occurrence of symptomatic RP; follow-up period >5 months if symptomatic RP did not occur; and entire lung fields scanned using computed tomography (CT) before RT.

Radiotherapy planning and image analysis

RT planning was done using Eclipse™ software (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) with an analytical anisotropic algorithm. The distribution of radiation dose was calculated using lung heterogeneity corrections. Patients were treated with curative or palliative intent with RT alone or with concurrent chemoradiation. Ninety-five patients (Ninety-five percent) were treated with 3D conformal RT and five patients (5 %) were treated with intensity-modulated RT. The total dose varied between 30 Gy and 66 Gy. CT scans were undertaken under free breathing before RT. Low attenuation volume (LAV), which represents emphysematous lesions in the lung, was evaluated using the threshold limit of −856 HU (Fig. 1a,b) [14]. We validated the association between the CT under free breathing and the inspiratory CT performed within 45 days after free breathing CT. Inspiratory CT was performed using Toshiba Aquillion ONE (Toshiba Medical Systems Corp., Otawara, Tochigi, Japan) and LAV was analyzed using Aquarius iNtuition™ software ver.4.4.12 (TeraRecon Inc., San Mateo, Calif) and evaluated using the threshold limit of −950 HU. LAV was evaluated in both the right and left lungs. We also measured total lung volume (TLV) from the CT data, and the ratio of LAV to TLV (LAV%) was calculated. The mean emphysema dose (MED) was defined as the mean dose of the irradiated LAV, and the mean lung without emphysema dose (MLWED) was defined as the mean dose of the irradiated TLV without LAV. The dosimetric parameters we evaluated were listed in Table 1.
Fig. 1

The area inside the light blue line was the LAV and the threshold was −856 HU. The area inside the purple line is the lung. The colorful area (for example red, yellow, green and blue) was the irradiated area and the overlaps were calculated

Table 1

Evaluated dosimetric parameters

Parameter

 

V2 (cc)

The volume of the lung receiving a dose ≥2 Gy

V5 (cc)

The volume of the lung receiving a dose ≥5 Gy

V10 (cc)

The volume of the lung receiving a dose ≥10 Gy

V20 (cc)

The volume of the lung receiving a dose ≥20 Gy

V30 (cc)

The volume of the lung receiving a dose ≥30 Gy

V2 − LAV2 (cc)

The volume of the lung without LAV receiving a dose of ≥2 Gy

V5 − LAV5 (cc)

The volume of the lung without LAV receiving a dose of ≥5 Gy

V10 − LAV10 (cc)

The volume of the lung without LAV receiving a dose of ≥10 Gy

V20 − LAV20 (cc)

The volume of the lung without LAV receiving a dose of ≥20 Gy

V30 − LAV30 (cc)

The volume of the lung without LAV receiving a dose of ≥30 Gy

LAV2 (cc)

The volume of LAV receiving a dose of ≥2 Gy

LAV5 (cc)

The volume of LAV receiving a dose of ≥5 Gy

LAV10 (cc)

The volume of LAV receiving a dose of ≥10 Gy

LAV20 (cc)

The volume of LAV receiving a dose of ≥20 Gy

LAV30 (cc)

The volume of LAV receiving a dose of ≥30 Gy

V2%

The percentage of lung volume receiving ≥2 Gy

V5%

The percentage of lung volume receiving ≥5 Gy

V10%

The percentage of lung volume receiving ≥10 Gy

V20%

The percentage of lung volume receiving ≥20 Gy

V30%

The percentage of lung volume receiving ≥30 Gy

(V2 − LAV2)∕TLV

The ratio of the lung without LAV receiving ≥2 Gy to the TLV

(V5 − LAV5)∕TLV

The ratio of the lung without LAV receiving ≥5 Gy to the TLV

(V10 – LAV10)∕TLV

The ratio of the lung without LAV receiving ≥10 Gy to the TLV

(V20 – LAV20)∕TLV

The ratio of the lung without LAV receiving ≥20 Gy to the TLV

(V30 – LAV30)∕TLV

The ratio of the lung without LAV receiving ≥30 Gy to the TLV

(V2 − LAV2)∕(TLV – LAV)

The ratio of the lung without LAV receiving ≥2 Gy to the TLV without LAV

(V5 – LAV5)∕(TLV – LAV)

The ratio of the lung without LAV receiving ≥5 Gy to the TLV without LAV

(V10 – LAV10)∕(TLV – LAV)

The ratio of the lung without LAV receiving ≥10 Gy to the TLV without LAV

(V20 − LAV20)∕(TLV – LAV)

The ratio of the lung without LAV receiving ≥20 Gy to the TLV without LAV

(V30 – LAV30)∕(TLV – LAV)

The ratio of the lung without LAV receiving ≥30 Gy to the TLV without LAV

LAV (cc)

Low attenuation volume

LAV%

The ratio of LAV to the total lung volume

TLV – LAV (cc)

Total lung volume without LAV

MLD (Gy)

Mean lung dose

MED (Gy)

Mean dose of the irradiated LAV,

MLWED (Gy)

Mean lung without emphysema dose

Clinical toxicity

Cases of RP were retrospectively monitored using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03 [15]. The primary endpoint for this analysis was symptomatic RP ≥ Grade 2, and the secondary endpoint was RP ≥ Grade 3. Patients were generally followed for 3 to 6 weeks after completion of RT, and at 3- to 6-month intervals thereafter. A diagnosis of RP was made on the basis of radiographic images, laboratory tests, physical examination, clinical symptoms, and medical records.

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board, which waived written informed consent because of the retrospective design.

Statistical analysis

We used summary statistics to analyze clinical factors including age, sex, disease stage, histology type, type of RT, chemotherapy, smoking history, smoking index, body mass index (BMI), and interstitial lung disease (ILD) for all patients, and classified patients as symptomatic RP, and RP ≥ Grade 3. For description, we used median and range for continuous variables, and percentage for categorical variables. We also compared the clinical factors between RP ≥ Grade 2 and RP ≤ Grade 1, and between RP ≥ Grade 3 and RP ≤ Grade 2, using Wilcoxon’s rank sum test or Fisher’s exact test.

Traditional dosimetric parameters including MLD, V2%, V5%, V10%, V20%, and V30%, and other dosimetric parameters associated with LAV, were described with median and interquartile range.

Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to evaluate the association between each dosimetric parameter and the onset of symptomatic RP, or RP ≥ Grade 3. Dosimetric parameters were divided by the standard deviation of each. The adjusted factors were decided using the result of univariate analysis. The predictive performance of each dosimetric parameter for RP was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and the net reclassification improvement (NRI). For IDI and NRI, the model with MLD was used as a reference model. We required a p value <0.05 for statistical significance. Statistical analyses were performed using JMP version 11 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

Results

Clinical parameters

RP was observed in 51 out of 100 patients: Grade 1, 24 patients; Grade 2, 12 patients; Grade 3, 13 patients; Grade 4, one patient; and Grade 5, one patient. Forty-nine patients did not develop RP. Therefore, in total, 27 patients developed RP ≥ Grade 2 and 15 patients developed RP ≥ Grade 3.

The follow-up period after the onset of RP was between 1 and 60 months (median, 12 months). Six patients died from lung cancer or RP, and one patient was referred to another hospital, after the onset of symptomatic RP and within 5 months of receiving RT. The period of observed onset of symptomatic RP was between 2 days and 8 months (median, 1 month) after RT.

Tables 2 and 3 show the results of univariate analysis. In the univariate analysis, disease stage (Stage 3), chemotherapy, ILD, MLD, and V20% were significantly associated with the occurrence of symptomatic RP (Table 2). None of the chemotherapy regimens were significantly associated with the occurrence of symptomatic RP (P = 0.599). Thirty-six patients received chemotherapy and RT concurrently, and four patients received chemotherapy before RT. If we limit RP ≥ Grade 3, staging (Stage 3), chemotherapy, ILD, and histology type were significantly associated with the occurrence of RP in the univariate analysis (Table 3).
Table 2

Clinical parameters in symptomatic radiation pneumonitis patients and asymptomatic patients

Characteristic

Total No. of Patients (N = 100)

No. of Symptomatic Patients (≥ grade 2 RP) (N = 27)

No. of Asymptomatic Patients (≤ grade 1 RP) (N = 73)

P Value

Median age (range), y

72 (39–89)

70 (59–82)

73 (39–89)

0.248

Male sex

82 (82)

25 (92.6)

57 (80.3)

0.221

Disease stage

   

0.003

 1

25 (25)

1 (3.7)

24 (32.9)

 

 2

9 (9)

2 (7.4)

7 (9.6)

 

 3

51 (51)

21 (77.8)

30 (41.1)

 

 4

15 (15)

3 (11.1)

12 (16.4)

 

a Histology type

   

0.060

 SqCC

33 (33)

12 (44.4)

21 (28.8)

 

 Adenocarcinoma

27 (27)

5 (18.5)

22 (30.1)

 

 SCC

15 (15)

7 (25.9)

8 (11.0)

 

 NSCC

8 (8)

2 (7.4)

6 (8.2)

 

 Unknown

14 (14)

1 (3.7)

13 (17.8)

 

 Others

3 (3)

0 (0)

3 (4.1)

 

Treatment type

   

0.103

 IMRT

5 (5)

0 (0)

5 (6.8)

 

 3D Conformal

95 (95)

27 (100)

68 (93.2)

 

Chemotherapy

   

<0.0001

 Yes

40 (40)

20 (74.1)

20 (27.4)

 

 No

60 (60)

7 (25.9)

53 (72.6)

 

Smoking history

   

0.196

 Current

24 (24)

10 (37.0)

14 (19.2)

 

 Former

59 (59)

13 (48.2)

46 (63.0)

 

 Never

17 (17)

4 (14.8)

12 (17.8)

 

Smoking (range), pack-years

40 (0–180)

45 (0–120)

36 (0–180)

0.195

Median BMI (range), kg/m2

20.3 (14.98–27.40)

20.55 (16.19–24.83)

20.16 (14.98–27.40)

0.395

ILD

   

0.0358

 Yes

6 (6)

4 (14.8)

2 (2.7)

 

 No

94 (94)

23 (85.2)

71 (97.3)

 

Surgery

   

0.3142

 None

95 (95)

25 (92.6)

70 (95.9)

 

 Pre-RT

1 (1)

1 (3.7)

0 (0)

 

 Post-RT

4 (4)

1 (3.7)

3 (4.1)

 

Median MLD (IQR), Gy

7.2 (3.676–10.572)

11.416 (8.615–16.801)

4.854 (3.338–8.146)

<0.0001

Median V20% (IQR)

13.554 (5.872–20.449)

21.153 (17.092–30.368)

10.314 (4.802–14.529)

<0.0001

Median LAV% (IQR)

0.103 (0.026–0.257)

0.095 (0.037–0.254)

0.108 (0.018–0.279)

0.907

(Wilcoxon’s rank sum test or Fisher’s exact test)

aPercentages in this column may not add up to exactly 100% because of rounding

Unless otherwise specified, data are expressed as numbers of patients, and numbers in parentheses are percentages. RP = radiation pneumonitis; SqCC = squamous cell carcinoma; SCC = small cell carcinoma; NSCC = non-small cell carcinoma; IMRT = intensity-modulated radiotherapy; BMI = body mass index; ILD = interstitial lung disease; MLD = mean lung dose; IQR = interquartile range; V20% = percentage of lung volume irradiated ≥20 Gy; LAV% = ratio of low attenuation volume to the lung volume

Table 3

Clinical parameters in patients with radiation pneumonitis ≥ Grade 3 and ≤ Grade 2

Characteristic

Total No. of Patients

(N = 100)

No. of ≥ Grade 3 RP Patients

(N = 15)

No. of ≤ Grade 2 RP Patients

(N = 85)

P Value

Median age (range), y

72 (39–89)

71 (62–80)

72 (39–89)

0.988

Male sex

82 (82)

14 (93.3)

68 (81.9)

0.453

Disease stage

   

0.0398

 1

25 (25)

0 (0)

25 (29.4)

 

 2

9 (9)

2 (13.3)

7 (8.2)

 

 3

51 (51)

11 (73.3)

40 (47.1)

 

 4

15 (15)

2 (13.3)

13 (15.3)

 

a Histology type

   

0.0479

 SqCC

33 (33)

10 (66.7)

23 (27.1)

 

 Adenocarcinoma

27 (27)

2 (13.3)

25 (29.4)

 

 SCC

15 (15)

3 (20.0)

12 (14.1)

 

 NSCC

8 (8)

0 (0)

8 (9.4)

 

 Unknown

14 (14)

0 (0)

14 (16.4)

 

 Others

3 (3)

0 (0)

3 (3.5)

 

Treatment type

   

1.000

 IMRT

5 (5)

0 (0)

5 (5.9)

 

 3D Conformal

95 (95)

15 (100)

80 (94.1)

 

aChemotherapy

   

0.0082

 Yes

40 (40)

11 (73.3)

29 (34.1)

 

 No

60 (60)

4 (26.7)

56 (65.9)

 

Smoking history

   

0.174

 Current

24 (24)

1 (6.7)

23 (27.1)

 

 Former

59 (59)

12 (80.0)

47 (55.3)

 

 Never

17 (17)

2 (13.3)

15 (17.6)

 

Smoking (range), pack-years

40 (0–180)

52 (0–120)

39 (0–180)

0.118

Median BMI (range), kg/m2

20.30

20.91

19.98

0.126

(14.98–27.40)

(16.19–24.83)

(14.98–27.40)

 

aILD

   

0.0420

 Yes

6 (6)

3 (20.0)

3 (3.5)

 

 No

94 (94)

12 (80.0)

82 (96.5)

 

Surgery

   

0.0783

 No surgery

95 (95)

13 (86.7)

82 (96.5)

 

 Pre-RT

1 (1)

1 (6.7)

0 (0)

 

 Post-RT

4 (4)

1 (6.7)

3 (3.5)

 

Median MLD (IQR), Gy

7.200

10.717

5.896

<0.0001

(3.676–10.572)

(8.590–17.610)

(3.474–9.308)

 

Median V20% (IQR)

13.554

20.522

12.626

<0.0001

(5.872–20.449)

(15.336–27.924)

(5.039–18.328)

 

Median LAV% (IQR)

0.103

0.085

0.112

0.798

(0.026–0.257)

(0.035–0.254)

(0.021–0.260)

 

(Wilcoxon’s rank sum test or Fisher’s exact test)

aPercentages in this column may not add up to exactly 100% because of rounding. Unless otherwise specified, data are expressed as numbers of patients, and numbers in parentheses are percentages. RP = radiation pneumonitis; SqCC = squamous cell carcinoma; SCC = small cell carcinoma; NSCC = non-small cell carcinoma; IMRT = intensity-modulated RT; BMI = body mass index; ILD = interstitial lung disease; MLD = mean lung dose; V20% = percentage of lung volume irradiated with ≥20Gy; IQR = interquartile range; LAV% = ratio of LAV to total lung volume

Dose volume parameter

Thirty-three patients underwent inspiratory CT within 45 days after free-breathing CT under the same condition. The LAV in inspiratory CT was highly correlated with the LAV in CT under free breathing (Fig. 2). Since patients who received chemotherapy were almost equal to the patients of disease stage 3, chemotherapy and interstitial lung disease (ILD) were used as adjusted factors in the logistic models. Multivariable logistic regression analysis for symptomatic RP (≥Grade 2) demonstrated that none of the dosimetric parameters that included LAV (i.e. LAV2, LAV5, LAV10, LAV20, LAV30, LAV, LAV%, and TLV – LAV) were significantly related to symptomatic RP (Table 4). Irradiated lung volume (V2, V5, V10, V20, V30) and counterpart measurements of the lung without LAV (V2 – LAV2, V5 – LAV5, V10 – LAV10, V20 – LAV20, V30 – LAV30) all were significantly associated with the occurrence of symptomatic RP. Every irradiated lung volume measurement without an LAV parameter (V2 – LAV2, V5 – LAV5, V10 – LAV10, V20 – LAV20, V30 – LAV30) had lower p values and higher odds ratios than the counterpart values with LAV (V2, V5, V10, V20, V30), indicating a stronger association with symptomatic RP. The percentage of irradiated lung volume (V2%, V5%, V10%, V20%, V30%) and counterpart measurements of the lung without LAV were also significantly associated with the occurrence of symptomatic RP. The MLD, MED, and MLWED all were significantly associated with the occurrence of symptomatic RP; however, a comparison of p values and odds ratios between the three parameters suggested a stronger association between MLWED and the occurrence of symptomatic RP.
Fig. 2

Spearman rank correlations between the LAV in inspiratory CT and the LAV in CT under free breathing in 33 patients. There was a significant relationship between these two measurements (LAV in CT under free breathing = 0.97 × LAV in inspiratory CT + 322.5, r = 0.839, P < .0001)

Table 4

Multivariate logistic regression analysis for symptomatic radiation pneumonitis (≥ Grade 2)

Parameter

Odds ratio

P Value

V2 (cc)

1.768 (1.056–3.104)

0.0358

V5 (cc)

1.795 (1.071–3.160)

0.0315

V10 (cc)

2.034 (1.196–3.710)

0.0122

V20 (cc)

2.270 (1.309–4.287)

0.0057

V30 (cc)

2.621 (1.482–5.055)

0.0018

V2 − LAV2 (cc)

2.037 (1.175–3.827)

0.0168

V5 − LAV5 (cc)

2.098 (1.192–4.054)

0.0164

V10 − LAV10 (cc)

2.451 (1.344–5.011)

0.0071

V20 − LAV20 (cc)

2.900 (1.525–6.228)

0.0028

V30 − LAV30 (cc)

3.627 (1.852–7.960)

0.0005

LAV2 (cc)

1.058 (0.618–1.718)

0.823

LAV5 (cc)

1.059 (0.615–1.702)

0.822

LAV10 (cc)

1.118 (0.650–1.775)

0.650

LAV20 (cc)

1.143 (0.666–1.791)

0.578

LAV30 (cc)

1.116 (0.640–1.742)

0.652

V2%

2.535 (1.422–4.935)

0.0030

V5%

2.421 (1.360–4.690)

0.0047

V10%

2.957 (1.586–6.188)

0.0016

V20%

3.771 (1.897–8.671)

0.0005

V30%

4.996 (2.392–12.299)

<0.0001

(V2 − LAV2)∕TLV

2.467 (1.384–4.792)

0.0040

(V5 − LAV5)∕TLV

2.376 (1.337–4.168)

0.0054

(V10 – LAV10)∕TLV

2.913 (1.558–6.096)

0.0019

(V20 – LAV20)∕TLV

4.085 (1.984–9.865)

0.0005

(V30 – LAV30)∕TLV

6.114 (2.726–16.873)

<0.0001

(V2 − LAV2)∕(TLV – LAV)

2.810 (1.551–5.621)

0.0015

(V5 – LAV5)∕(TLV – LAV)

2.788 (1.532–5.606)

0.0017

(V10 – LAV10)∕(TLV – LAV)

3.363 (1.756–7.632)

0.0008

(V20 − LAV20)∕(TLV – LAV)

4.319 (2.118–10.368)

0.0003

(V30 – LAV30)∕(TLV – LAV)

5.707 (2.676–14.706)

<0.0001

LAV (cc)

0.758 (0.378–1.351)

0.383

LAV%

0.901 (0.489–1.571)

0.722

TLV – LAV (cc)

0.869 (0.491–1.492)

0.617

MLD (Gy)

3.615 (1.893–7.836)

0.0003

MED (Gy)

1.906 (1.154–3.270)

0.0138

MLWED (Gy)

3.950 (2.042–8.746)

0.0002

The number of symptomatic RP patients / Total patients was 27 / 100

Data were divided by the standard deviation and adjusted for chemotherapy and interstitial lung disease. V2/5/10/20/30 = volume of the lung receiving a dose ≥2/5/10/20/30 Gy, respectively; V2/5/10/20/30% = percentage of lung volume irradiated with ≥2/5/10/20/30 Gy, respectively; LAV2/5/10/20/30 = volume of the lung without low attenuation volume (LAV) receiving 2/5/10/20/30 Gy, respectively; TLV = total lung volume; MLD = mean lung dose; MED = mean emphysema dose; MLWED = mean lung without emphysema dose

In multivariable logistic regression analysis for RP ≥ Grade 3, the results were very similar to those for symptomatic RP, i.e., all of the dosimetric parameters except V2, V5, V10, and MED were significantly related to RP ≥ Grade 3 (Additional file 1).

The predictive performance of dosimetric parameters for symptomatic RP was compared using AUC, AIC, BIC, IDI, and NRI (Fig. 3). The parameters with smaller AIC value or smaller BIC value are preferable when comparing two or more parameters. The parameters with bigger AUC value, IDI value, or NRI value are preferable when comparing two or more parameters. The same tendency was shown in all statistical measures. The irradiated lung volume (V2, V5, V10, V20, V30) showed a lower predictive performance for symptomatic RP than the counterpart measurements of the lung without LAV (V2 – LAV2, V5 – LAV5, V10 – LAV10, V20 – LAV20, V30 – LAV30). MLWED predicted the risk of symptomatic RP more accurately than MLD. For every lung volume measurement, the ratio of the irradiated lung volume without LAV to the TLV without LAV [(V2 – LAV2) ∕ (TLV – LAV), (V5 – LAV5) ∕ (TLV – LAV), (V10 – LAV10) ∕ (TLV – LAV), (V20 – LAV20) ∕ (TLV – LAV), (V30 – LAV30) ∕ (TLV – LAV)] predicted the risk of symptomatic RP more accurately than the conventional dosimetric parameters, including the V2%, V5%, V10%, V20%, and V30% counterparts. The most accurate dosimetric predictor of symptomatic RP was the ratio of the lung without LAV receiving ≥30Gy to the TLV without LAV (AIC, 78.849; BIC, 88.848; AUC, 0.894; IDI, 0.064; NRI, 1.016). According to the receiver operating characteristic analysis, the threshold value of the (V30 − LAV30) / (TLV − LAV) predictor was 0.161 (sensitivity, 74.1%; specificity, 91.8%).
Fig. 3

The parameters with smaller AIC value or smaller BIC value are preferable. The parameters with bigger AUC value, IDI value, or NRI value are preferable. Compared with traditional dosimetric parameters (blue bar), counterpart measurements without LAV (orange bar) improved risk prediction of symptomatic RP. Data were adjusted for chemotherapy and interstitial lung disease. AUC = difference in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; V2/5/10/20/30 = volume of the lung receiving a dose ≥2/5/10/20/30 Gy, respectively; V2/5/10/20/30% = percentage of lung volume irradiated with ≥2/5/10/20/30 Gy, respectively; LAV2/5/10/20/30 = volume of the lung without low attenuation volume (LAV) receiving 2/5/10/20/30 Gy, respectively; TLV = total lung volume; MLD = mean lung dose; MED = mean emphysema dose; MLWED = mean lung without emphysema dose

Discussion

In this study, we compared various parameters to identify the best predictor for RP in lung cancer patients. First, we found that the absolute lung volume inside the irradiation field was correlated with the occurrence of symptomatic RP (≥ Grade 2). It has been well established that the percentage of irradiated lung volume is correlated with the occurrence of RP [9, 13, 16]. Tsujino et al. proposed that absolute lung volume spared from 5 Gy is significantly associated with RP [7], but absolute lung volume inside the irradiation field has not been evaluated until now. Second, irradiated lung volume without LAV was a better dosimetric predictor of RP than irradiated lung volume including LAV. Third, we identified a new dosimetric parameter that was the most accurate predictor of symptomatic RP: (V30 − LAV30) ∕ (TLV − LAV). These findings suggest that the total amount of the lung volume without emphysematous lesions inside the radiation field might influence the onset of RP.

Various dosimetric parameters including MLD and V20% have been reported to predict RP [9, 11, 13, 16, 17]. The dosimetric parameters analyzed in this study were mutually correlated, therefore we used AUC, AIC, BIC, IDI, and NRI to compare them for RP predictive power. To our knowledge, this is the first report using multiple statistical measures to determine the strongest predictor for RP.

Takeda et al. reported that heavy smoking is the strongest negative predictor of severe RP and is correlated with severe COPD [5]. Wang et al. also noted that lower baseline pulmonary function did not increase the risk of symptomatic radiation-induced lung toxicity [6]. Our results are in line with these reports. Studies of bronchoalveolar lavage in human subjects, and bronchoalveolar lavage and ultrastructural morphology in animal models, also demonstrated that there is less inflammation in the alveolar tissue in those irradiated and exposed to smoking than in those irradiated but not exposed to smoking [18, 19].

By contrast, other authors have argued that COPD and severe pulmonary emphysema are significant risk factors for RP [1, 2]. Inoue et al. investigated the relationship between the diagnosis of COPD and RP [1]. They did not find any association between emphysema volume inside the irradiation volume and RP. However, because the diagnosis of COPD in their report was based on the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ∕ forced vital capacity (FVC) < 0.70 ratio, the degree of emphysematous lesions, and especially early changes in the lung, were not evaluated using CT. A prospective study is currently underway to investigate the similar concept of the present study [20].

Chemotherapy regimens including carboplatin/paclitaxel and ILD have also been reported as risk factors for RP [3, 7, 2123]. In the present study, chemotherapy and ILD were significantly associated with the occurrence of symptomatic RP. Therefore, we thought these factors might be confounding factors and chemotherapy and ILD were used as adjusted factors in the logistic models in this study.

The threshold used for quantification of emphysema is generally −950 HU, which is appropriate for use at full inspiration [24, 25]. In the present study, CT scanning was conducted under free breathing, which is nearly equal to expiratory CT; therefore, we used the −856HU threshold [14, 2629]. We also validated that the LAV in inspiratory CT was highly correlated with the LAV in CT under free breathing (Fig. 2).

This study had several limitations that warrant further evaluation. First, our subjects were relatively small in number and came from a single institution. This was also a retrospective study. A prospective multicenter study is needed to confirm the results. Second, we did not evaluate ILD quantitatively; however, it should be noted that currently there is no established method for quantitative evaluation of ILD. Third, because many values were missing, we were unable to evaluate pulmonary function tests. Forth, the large number of simultaneous independent variables were used for multivariate logistic regression in comparison to the sample size. Therefore they can be prone to overfitting.

Conclusions

We conclude that use of irradiated lung volume without emphysema leads to more accurate dosimetric prediction of RP than traditional parameters. The most accurate dosimetric predictor of RP was the ratio of the lung without LAV receiving ≥30 Gy to the TLV without LAV.

Abbreviations

AIC: 

Akaike’s information criterion

AUC: 

Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve

BIC: 

Bayesian information criterion

BMI: 

Body mass index

COPD: 

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

CT: 

Computed tomography

G2: 

Grade 2

G3: 

Grade 3

IDI: 

Integrated discrimination improvement

ILD: 

Interstitial lung disease

IMRT: 

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy

LAV: 

Low attenuation volume

LAV%: 

The percentage of low attenuation volume to total lung volume

MED: 

Mean emphysema dose

MLD: 

Mean lung dose

MLWED: 

Mean lung without emphysema dose

NRI: 

Net reclassification improvement

RP: 

Radiation pneumonitis

RT: 

Radiotherapy

TLV: 

Total lung volume

V2: 

The volume of the lung receiving a dose of ≥2 Gy

V5: 

The volume of the lung receiving a dose of ≥5 Gy

V10: 

The volume of the lung receiving a dose of ≥10 Gy

V20: 

The volume of the lung receiving a dose of ≥20 Gy

V30: 

The volume of the lung receiving a dose of ≥30 Gy

V2 – LAV2: 

The volume of the lung without low attenuation volume receiving a dose of ≥2 Gy

V5 – LAV5: 

The volume of the lung without low attenuation volume receiving a dose of ≥5 Gy

V10 – LAV10: 

The volume of the lung without low attenuation volume receiving a dose of ≥10 Gy

V20 – LAV20: 

The volume of the lung without low attenuation volume receiving a dose of ≥20 Gy

V30 – LAV30: 

The volume of the lung without low attenuation volume receiving a dose of ≥30 Gy

V2%: 

The percentage of lung volume irradiated with ≥2 Gy

V5%: 

The percentage of lung volume irradiated with ≥5 Gy

V10%: 

The percentage of lung volume irradiated with ≥10 Gy

V20%: 

The percentage of lung volume irradiated with ≥20 Gy

V30%: 

The percentage of lung volume irradiated with ≥30 Gy

(V2 – LAV2) / (TLV – LAV): 

The ratio of the lung without low attenuation volume receiving ≥2 Gy to the total lung volume without low attenuation volume

(V5 – LAV5) / (TLV – LAV): 

The ratio of the lung without low attenuation volume receiving ≥5 Gy to the total lung volume without low attenuation volume

(V10 – LAV10) / (TLV – LAV): 

The ratio of the lung without low attenuation volume receiving ≥10 Gy to the total lung volume without low attenuation volume

(V20 – LAV20) / (TLV – LAV): 

The ratio of the lung without low attenuation volume receiving ≥20 Gy to the total lung volume without low attenuation volume

(V30 – LAV30) / (TLV – LAV): 

The ratio of the lung without low attenuation volume receiving ≥30 Gy to the total lung volume without low attenuation volume

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

YU and YN were involved in study design, data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript preparation. WS, HN, MY, MO, and EO contributed to the data collection and manuscript preparation. DK performed data analysis and validation. KN, KA, and TT were involved in imaging assessment and manuscript preparation. STM performed data analysis and statistical analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

We obtained approval from the institutional review board.

Consent for publication

Obtained.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Shiga University of Medical Science
(2)
Department of Radiology, Shiga University of Medical Science
(3)
Department of Medical Statistics, Shiga University of Medical Science
(4)
The Center for Data Science Education and Research, Shiga University
(5)
Department of Radiology, Shiga University of Medical Science Hospital
(6)
Division of Infection Control and Prevention, Shiga University of Medical Science Hospital
(7)
Health Administration Center, Shiga University of Medical Science

References

  1. Inoue T, Shiomi H, Oh RJ. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for stage I lung cancer with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: special reference to survival and radiation-induced pneumonitis. J Radiat Res. 2015;56:727–34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Kimura T, Togami T, Takashima H, Nishiyama Y, Ohkawa M, Nagata Y. Radiation pneumonitis in patients with lung and mediastinal tumours: a retrospective study of risk factors focused on pulmonary emphysema. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:135–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Sanuki N, Ono A, Komatsu E, et al. Association of computed tomography-detected pulmonary interstitial changes with severe radiation pneumonitis for patients treated with thoracic radiotherapy. J Radiat Res. 2012;53:110–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Rancati T, Ceresoli GL, Gagliardi G, Schipani S, Cattaneo GM. Factors predicting radiation pneumonitis in lung cancer patients: a retrospective study. Radiother Oncol. 2003;67:275–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Takeda A, Kunieda E, Ohashi T, et al. Severe COPD is correlated with mild radiation pneumonitis following stereotactic body radiotherapy. Chest. 2012;141:858–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Wang J, Cao J, Yuan S, et al. Poor baseline pulmonary function may not increase the risk of radiation-induced lung toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:798–804.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Tsujino K, Hashimoto T, Shimada T, et al. Combined analysis of V20, VS5, pulmonary fibrosis score on baseline computed tomography, and patient age improves prediction of severe radiation pneumonitis after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9:983–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Oetzel D, Schraube P, Hensley F, Sroka-Perez G, Menke M, Flentje M. Estimation of pneumonitis risk in three-dimensional treatment planning using dose-volume histogram analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;33:455–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Graham MV, Purdy JA, Emami B, et al. Clinical dose-volume histogram analysis for pneumonitis after 3D treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:323–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hernando ML, Marks LB, Bentel GC, et al. Radiation-induced pulmonary toxicity: a dose-volume histogram analysis in 201 patients with lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;51:650–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kwa SL, Lebesque JV, Theuws JC, et al. Radiation pneumonitis as a function of mean lung dose: an analysis of pooled data of 540 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;42:1–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Tsujino K, Hirota S, Endo M, et al. Predictive value of dose-volume histogram parameters for predicting radiation pneumonitis after concurrent chemoradiation for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55:110–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim TH, Cho KH, Pyo HR, et al. Dose-volumetric parameters for predicting severe radiation pneumonitis after three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for lung cancer. Radiology. 2005;235:208–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim DK, Hersh CP, Washko GR, et al. Epidemiology, radiology, and genetics of nicotine dependence in COPD. Respir Res. 2011;12:9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v. 4.03, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health. Rockville. 2009. http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_8.5x11.pdf Accessed 25 May 2017.
  16. Marks LB, Bentzen SM, Deasy JO, et al. Radiation dose-volume effects in the lung. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:S70–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Fay M, Tan A, Fisher R, Mac Manus M, Wirth A, Ball D. Dose-volume histogram analysis as predictor of radiation pneumonitis in primary lung cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61:1355–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Bjermer L, Franzen L, Littbrand B, Nilsson K, Angstrom T, Henriksson R. Effects of smoking and irradiated volume on inflammatory response in the lung of irradiated breast cancer patients evaluated with bronchoalveolar lavage. Cancer Res. 1990;50:2027–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Bjermer L, Cai Y, Nilsson K, Hellstrom S, Henriksson R. Tobacco smoke exposure suppresses radiation-induced inflammation in the lung: a study of bronchoalveolar lavage and ultrastructural morphology in the rat. Eur Respir J. 1993;6:1173–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoover DA, Capaldi DP, Sheikh K, et al. Functional lung avoidance for individualized radiotherapy (FLAIR): study protocol for a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:934.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Yamaguchi S, Ohguri T, Matsuki Y, et al. Radiotherapy for thoracic tumors: association between subclinical interstitial lung disease and fatal radiation pneumonitis. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015;20:45–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Palma DA, Senan S, Tsujino K, et al. Predicting radiation pneumonitis after chemoradiation therapy for lung cancer: an international individual patient data meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:444–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ueki N, Matsuo Y, Togashi Y, et al. Impact of pretreatment interstitial lung disease on radiation pneumonitis and survival after stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10:116–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gevenois PA, de Maertelaer V, De Vuyst P, Zanen J, Yernault JC. Comparison of computed density and macroscopic morphometry in pulmonary emphysema. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152:653–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoffman EA, Ahmed FS, Baumhauer H, et al. Variation in the percent of emphysema-like lung in a healthy, nonsmoking multiethnic sample. The MESA lung study. Ann Am Thoracic Soc. 2014;11:898–907.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Newman KB, Lynch DA, Newman LS, Ellegood D, Newell JD Jr. Quantitative computed tomography detects air trapping due to asthma. Chest. 1994;106:105–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mets OM, van Hulst RA, Jacobs C, van Ginneken B, de Jong PA. Normal range of emphysema and air trapping on CT in young men. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:336–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Schroeder JD, McKenzie AS, Zach JA, et al. Relationships between airflow obstruction and quantitative CT measurements of emphysema, air trapping, and airways in subjects with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:W460–70.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Regan EA, Hokanson JE, Murphy JR, et al. Genetic epidemiology of COPD (COPDGene) study design. COPD. 2010;7:32–43.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017