Radiotherapy for Refractory, Corticosteroid-Resistant Orbital Inflammatory Diseases: Plan Design, Clinical Efficacy, and Prognosis/Outcomes

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4614680/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Radiotherapy for Refractory, Corticosteroid-Resistant Orbital Inflammatory Diseases: Plan Design, Clinical Efficacy, and Prognosis/Outcomes

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4614680/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose

Orbital inflammatory diseases (OID), including Graves’ ophthalmopathy (GO), orbital pseudotumor (OP), and IgG4-related ophthalmic disease (IgG4-ROD), often require prolonged corticosteroid therapy, which may lead to severe hormonal side effects. These diseases are notably refractory and resistant to corticosteroids. While opposing lateral-field radiotherapy has shown positive results, the potential of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to enhance efficacy and reduce side effects remains uncertain. This study evaluates the radiation dose, clinical efficacy, side effects, and outcomes of orbital VMAT in patients with refractory, corticosteroid-resistant OID.

Methods and materials:

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 58 patients with refractory, corticosteroid-resistant OID treated with orbital VMAT from November 2019 to July 2022. The primary endpoint was the reduction or cessation of corticosteroid use following radiotherapy, with secondary endpoints including improvements in ocular clinical symptoms (diplopia, proptosis, visual acuity, and extraocular movement) and long-term side effects.

Results

The median target dose was 20 Gy, with an average lens irradiation dose of 5.4 Gy. Initially, all 58 patients received corticosteroids. After a median follow-up of 27.5 months, 89.7% (52/58) of patients responded positively to radiotherapy: specifically, 55.2% (32/58) completely tapered off corticosteroids, while 34.5% (20/58) reduced their dosage. Symptomatic improvements were observed in diplopia (66.0%), proptosis (63.5%), visual acuity (55.2%), and extraocular movements (66.7%). Regarding the long-term side effects of radiotherapy, incidences of dry eye syndrome and lens opacities were reported at 3.4% and 1.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

Orbital VMAT is an effective treatment for refractory, corticosteroid-resistant OID, reducing corticosteroid use and improving ocular symptoms with minimal side effects. Further prospective clinical trials are warranted to validate more appropriate VMAT doses and planning models, enhancing treatment outcomes without increasing radiotherapy side effects.

Orbital volumetric-modulated arc therapy

Orbital inflammatory diseases

Radiotherapy plan design

Clinical efficacy

Prognosis

Orbital inflammatory diseases (OID), including conditions such as Graves’ ophthalmopathy (GO), orbital pseudotumor (OP) (also known as idiopathic orbital inflammation), and immunoglobulin G4-related ophthalmic disease (IgG4-ROD), are immune-associated disorders characterized by symptoms including proptosis, pain, tearing, impaired extraocular mobility, diplopia, periorbital edema, visual impairment, and rarely blindness (1–4). The treatment of OID is typically based on the patient's clinical presentation, disease severity, and response to initial therapies. Presently, clinical treatment options include observation, corticosteroids, immunosuppressive medications, orbital radiotherapy, and surgery (2, 5). However, every treatment approach has its limitations and uncertainties. Due to the heterogeneous nature of these conditions and the lack of large-scale randomized controlled trials, there is currently no universally established standard treatment protocol.

Corticosteroids usually serve as the first line of therapy for OID, yet their long-term or high-dose use may result in significant hormonal side effects and other complications such as hyperglycemia, hypertension, immune suppression, osteoporosis, weight gain, and mood alterations (6, 7). Despite their efficacy, with approximately 80% of patients experiencing improvement, corticosteroids carry a high risk of relapse with up to 50% of patients encountering symptom recurrence (8), and they may be unsuitable for some individuals due to adverse reactions or contraindications.

Orbital radiotherapy, as a non-invasive treatment modality, has shown efficacy in alleviating orbital inflammation and visual symptoms in some studies. Response rates vary between 50% and 97% based on different evaluation criteria, with a median recurrence rate of 10% (7, 9–12). It proves particularly beneficial for patients who are unresponsive to or intolerant of corticosteroid therapy. A meta-analysis indicates that combining radiotherapy with corticosteroids yields superior outcomes compared to either therapy alone (13). Nevertheless, conflicting opinions persist, trials compared orbital radiotherapy with control radiotherapy (sham radiotherapy) suggesting no benefit from radiotherapy (14, 15), which employed a 20 ~ 29 Gy dose of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). Overall, while radiotherapy demonstrates favorable response rates, variations in inclusion criteria, radiation doses, techniques, and outcome parameters across studies make comparisons challenging (10). Now, volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has become the mainstream in radiotherapy. It’s an advanced radiation therapy technique designed to deliver precise radiation doses to the target area while minimizing exposure to surrounding healthy tissues. VAMT dynamically modulates the beam shape, intensity, and dose rate during arc delivery, which may be suitable for OID patients (16).

To address this issue, we employed the VMAT technique with modified target delineation and dose limitation, retrospectively analyzing therapeutic efficacy and side effects for refractory, corticosteroid-resistant OID patients.

Patients selection

The refractory, corticosteroid-resistant OID patients receiving VMAT between November 2019 and July 2022 in our department were retrospectively recruited. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) 18–75 years of age, (b) moderate to severe cases, (c) no prior orbital radiotherapy, and (d) patients who were unable to tolerate or respond to hormonal drugs. Of the initial 60 patients identified, 2 patients with GO were excluded due to an inability to complete the planned course of radiotherapy. The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital.

Target delineation and plan design

Patients were positioned supine and immobilized using a thermoplastic mask system, utilizing the Philips Brilliance Big Bore CT scanner (Philips Medical Systems) following established protocols, with a 3-mm slice thickness spanning from the calvaria to the C2 level. Additionally, axial 3.0-mm-thick magnetic resonance images (MRI) were acquired within the region of interest to facilitate precise delineation of the target volume.

Clinical target volume (CTV) was defined to encompass the inflamed orbital tissues, meticulously excluding structures such as the lenses, eyes, and anterior chambers, based on symptoms and imaging modalities such as CT or MRI. Experienced radiation oncologists meticulously contoured organs at risk (OARs), including lenses, eyeballs, optic nerves, chiasm, and bilateral hippocampi, on the CT dataset. Subsequently, a 5 ~ 10 mm expansion was applied to the left and right lenses to generate the lenses avoidance (LA) region. Planning target volume (PTV) was then outlined with a 3 mm margin from CTV, excluding the LA region.

The total prescription dose for the PTV was 20 ~ 30 Gy at 2 Gy per once-daily fraction, tailored to individual patient characteristics, extent of inflammation, and severity of symptoms. The planning objective was to ensure that 95% of the PTV received the prescription dose while sparing OARs as low as possible.

For treatment delivery, the Elekta Synergy accelerator equipped with 80 multileaf collimators (MLC) and the Monaco treatment planning system (Version 5.11.03) were utilized. All patients underwent treatment with VMAT utilizing 6 MV photon fields. The treatment optimization process employed constraints based on biological cost functions (i.e. Serial or parallel complication model for OARs and Poisson cell kill function for the PTV).

Plan evaluation

A quantitative evaluation of the VMAT plans was conducted using a standard dose-volume histogram (DVH). For PTV, the following parameters were assessed: volume receiving the prescribed dose (V_P) was reported as the target coverage, D_98% and D_2% (the dose received by 98% and 2% of the PTV volume) were defined as the minimum dose and maximum dose of the PTV (17). For OARs, the evaluation included: the maximum dose (denoted as D_max), which was defined as the dose to the hottest 0.03-cc volume of the OARs, and D_100% (the dose received by 100% of the OAR volume).

Follow-up and Outcomes

The study implemented a structured follow-up protocol to assess the outcomes of patients undergoing radiotherapy for OID. Here are the key aspects of the follow-up process and the outcomes measured:

Follow-up duration: The follow-up duration was defined as the period from the first day of radiotherapy to the date of the last examination. Patients were routinely assessed at 3-month intervals during the first year post-radiotherapy, followed by 6-month intervals thereafter.

Primary endpoint - Response to Radiotherapy: The primary endpoint was the response to radiotherapy. This was defined as the ability of patients to discontinue or reduce their corticosteroid usage at 6 months post-radiotherapy completion without experiencing any further flares beyond 6 months. A “flare” was defined as the need for additional intervention, such as increased corticosteroid dosage or surgery, due to increased symptoms occurring after 6 months from radiotherapy completion (18).

Descriptive statistics: This was used to report various aspects of the study outcomes, including corticosteroid requirements, the incidence of flares, and changes in eye symptoms such as diplopia, proptosis, visual acuity, and extraocular movements.

Long-term side effects of radiotherapy: The study focused on dry eye syndrome and lens opacities. The evaluation focused on measuring the occurrence and progression of these effects starting from 6 months post-radiotherapy completion and onwards.

Statistical Methods

Statistical analysis and tabulations were conducted using JMP software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). The Kaplan-Meier product limit method was employed to provide an estimate of local control.

Patients Characteristics

The study population comprised a total of 58 enrolled patients, categorized into different subgroups based on their underlying condition: 33 patients with GO, 21 patients with OP, and 3 patients with IgG4-ROD. Table 1 provides a summary of the main patient and tumor characteristics.

In the GO subgroup, of the 36 patients, 17 were female (47.2%) and 19 were male (52.8%). The median age was 45 years, ranging from 27 to 68 years. The median CTV was recorded at 69.26 cm³, with a range spanning from 25.22 to 76.92 cm³. Bilateral manifestation of the condition was predominant, observed in 34 patients, while unilateral affliction was comparatively rare, noted in 2 cases affecting the right eye.

In the OP subgroup, there was a nearly balanced gender distribution, with 11 females (52.4%) and 10 males (47.6%). The median age was slightly lower compared to the GO subgroup, at 43 years, ranging from 20 to 58 years. The median CTV was 32.61 cm³, varying between 22.91 and 64.87 cm³. Unilateral conditions were more prevalent in the OP subgroup, with 11 patients experiencing right-eye involvement and 5 patients experiencing left-eye involvement. Bilateral affliction was confirmed in 5 cases.

In the IgG4-ROD subgroup, only 3 patients were comprised, with 1 female (33.3%) and 2 males (66.7%). The median age in this subgroup was 49 years, within a narrower range of 34 to 51 years. The median CTV was noted as 62.58 cm³, spanning from 32.12 to 66.65 cm³. Bilateral disease was present in 2 patients, with 1 patient having left-eye involvement and none with right-eye involvement.

Target delineation, plan design, and radiation dose analysis

Figure 1A and Figure 1B illustrate the delineation of the CTV for one patient, which encompasses the extraocular muscles delineated in red. This volume represents the area requiring treatment to address inflammation and associated symptoms. Additionally, Figure 1C and Figure 1D depict the typical dose distribution of a VMAT plan for this patient. A low-dose zone around the lenses, referred to as the LA region, is also shown in Figure 1. This area is spared from high doses of radiation to prevent complications such as dry eye syndrome and lens opacities.

The plan optimization protocol, detailed in Table 2 (e.g., 30 Gy over 15 fractions), incorporates stringent dose limitations for OARs, with a special emphasis on the lenses. Contrary to conventional cancer treatment planning, where the high dose limit for the PTV is typically restricted to 110% of the prescribed dose, covering less than 5% of the PTV, our modified threshold permits up to 125% of the prescribed dose, restricted to less than 2% of the PTV. This adjustment reflects a strategic shift in dose distribution, aligning with the nuanced requirements of our specific treatment objectives: achieving a steep dose fall-off gradient between the PTV and lenses, ensuring comprehensive coverage of the prescribed dose for the PTV while restricting the dose to the lenses to a maximum of 6 Gy. Additionally, in consideration of hippocampal memory protection, dose constraints were set as follows: D_max ≤ 16 Gy, D_100% ≤ 9 Gy (19).

Table 3 provides detailed dosimetry statistics on target coverage and OARs. The average coverage of the PTV reached 95.8% with a D2 value of 1.26%. Additionally, Dmax of the lenses was recorded at 5.4 Gy. For the left and right bilateral hippocampi, the Dmax values were 9.6 Gy and 10.9 Gy, respectively, while the D100% values were 2.3 Gy and 3.4 Gy, respectively. Those results indicate strict compliance with the established protocol outlined in Table 2. Such dosimetry data are crucial for assessing the balance between effective tumor control and minimizing the risk of radiation-induced damage to OARs.

Radiation treatment response and toxicities

The median follow-up duration in the study was 27.5 months, ranging from 2 to 47 months, with 83.3% of the patients having follow-ups ≥ 12 months.

Further details regarding corticosteroid tapering can be found in Table 4. Corticosteroids were administered as the initial treatment modality to the entire cohort of 58 patients. Of those, 52 patients (52/58, 89.7%) responded positively to radiotherapy, while 6 patients (6/58, 10.3%) failed to respond due to uncontrolled symptoms and required further intervention. Specifically, 32 patients (32/58, 55.2%) were able to completely taper off corticosteroids due to symptom control, while 20 patients (20/58, 34.5%) experienced a reduction in corticosteroid dosage among the remaining 26 patients who were unable to fully decrease their corticosteroid dosage.

The symptom changes and long-term side effects before and after radiotherapy are presented in Table 5. Notably, symptomatic improvements were observed in diplopia (33/50, 66.0%), proptosis (33/52, 63.5%), visual acuity (32/58, 55.2%), and extraocular movements (30/45, 66.7%) among the patients. As for the long-term side effects of radiotherapy, the incidences of dry eye syndrome and lens opacities were reported at 3.4% (2/58) and 1.7% (1/58), respectively.

Benign orbital diseases, while not inherently life-threatening, can significantly compromise visual function by affecting critical structures such as the optic nerve, extraocular muscles, or cornea (3, 4). The best clinical management of patients diagnosed with OID remains uncertain, despite various treatment modalities that have demonstrated efficacy (4). As an alternative option to OID, orbital radiotherapy has shown potential in alleviating orbital inflammation and improving visual symptoms in numerous studies, however, its efficacy remains a subject of debate (14, 15). To address this ambiguity, our study aimed to assess the effectiveness of radiotherapy for for refractory, corticosteroid-resistant OID patients based on several key outcome measures. Our primary focus was on the patient's ability to taper corticosteroids without experiencing further exacerbations of orbitopathy symptoms, serving as a crucial indicator of treatment efficacy. Additionally, we evaluated changes in specific symptoms such as diplopia, proptosis, visual acuity, and extraocular movements before and after radiotherapy. Furthermore, we examined long-term side effects, with a particular emphasis on dry eye syndrome and lens opacities. By comprehensively analyzing these parameters, we aimed to provide valuable insights into the overall effectiveness and safety profile of radiotherapy as a treatment option for OID, ultimately guiding clinical decision-making and improving patient outcomes.

In our study, 89.7% of patients on corticosteroids had a significant reduction in corticosteroid requirements after orbital VMAT. Among these patients, 55.2% were able to discontinue corticosteroid use entirely, and 34.5% experienced reductions in corticosteroid dosage. This aligns with previous studies that have used corticosteroid requirements as a primary measure of radiotherapy effectiveness at specific time points (18, 20). Furthermore, our study reports relatively low incidences of dry eye syndrome (3.4%) and lens opacities (1.7%) among the patient population. These findings highlight the role of radiotherapy help stabilize the disease process and minimize the duration of corticosteroid therapy and its acceptable side effects. Previous reports have also established the efficacy of the 20 Gy in 10 fractions as the most efficacious and minimally toxic treatment dose (9, 18). However, other reports have suggested doses less than 20 Gy are sufficient for patients with predominantly soft tissue signs without ocular dysmotility (16). Our study, with a prescription of 20~30 Gy depending on the severity of symptoms, showed a highly favorable outcome.

Orbital radiotherapy offers an advantage over surgery by preserving eye structure, potentially leading to a better appearance after treatment. Historically, conventional radiotherapy or 3D-CRT was commonly employed for OID treatment but lacked dose-modulating techniques. In one approach, protecting the lenses involved forced avoidance, which resulted in inadequate dose coverage of the target area, while in the other approach, aimed at ensuring adequate target coverage, which runed the risk of overexposure the lenses. In a study by Matthiesen (21), a dose of 20 Gy in 10 fractions was delivered using two opposing lateral 6-MV fields. Notably, they reported a 12% incidence of dry eye syndrome. In our investigation, we applied a 5~10 mm expansion to generate the LA region around the lenses, and we delineated the PTV with a 3 mm margin excluding the LA region, which effectively reducing forced avoidance in opposing lateral fields. With the advanced orbital VMAT, we achieved a steeper dose gradient between the tumor target and OARs in our study, in which we set strict dose constraints with D_maxof lenses ≤ 6Gy and PTV coverage ≥ 95%. Our orbital VMAT plans yielded a D_max of 5.4 Gy to the lenses and 95.8% average PTV coverage, contributing to low incidences of dry eye syndrome (3.4%) and lens opacities (1.7%), which was consistent with the findings by Li (22).

Thus, our meticulous delineation of PTV, prescription of dose, and dose constraints on OARs proved effective in minimizing radiation-induced side effects while maintaining treatment efficacy. These results underscore the importance of adopting advanced radiotherapy techniques like VMAT in the management of OID, highlighting the potential for improved patient outcomes and quality of life. Further studies are warranted to explore the long-term efficacy and safety of this approach, as well as its impact on patient-reported outcomes.

However, there are several limitations to our retrospective analysis: (1) The number of cases is limited to just over 50, suggesting the need for larger sample sizes in future follow-up studies. (2) Retrospective studies are inherently prone to selection bias, and unidentified confounding factors may influence the results. (3) The therapeutic dose ranges from 20 to 30 Gy, lacking uniformity, and the optimal radiotherapy dose remains uncertain, warranting further investigation through prospective trials. Therefore, prospective studies with well-defined cohort characteristics and outcome definitions are essential.

Orbital radiotherapy has shown promising results in improving visual symptoms and reducing the dependence on corticosteroids in patients with OID. It provides an alternative treatment option for patients who cannot tolerate or have contraindications to prolonged corticosteroid therapy. The use of radiotherapy has demonstrated acceptable side effects, although long-term effects still need to be monitored and evaluated through further follow-up. Larger and well-designed prospective trials are warranted to establish standardized protocols and guidelines for the radiotherapy management of OID.

OID: Orbital inflammatory diseases; GO: Graves’ ophthalmopathy; OP: Orbital pseudotumor; IgG4-ROD: IgG4-related ophthalmic disease; VMAT: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy; 3D-CRT: Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy; MRIs: Magnetic resonance images; CTV: Clinical target volume; OARs: Organs at risk; LA: Lenses avoidance; PTV: Planning target volume; MLC: Multileaf collimators; DVH: Dose-volume histogram; Vp: Volume receiving the prescribed dose; Dmax: the maximum dose; D_98% and D_2%: the dose received by 98% of the PTV volume; D_2%: the dose received by 2% of the PTV volume.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital (2023ZSLYEC-084). We confirm that all methods were carried out under relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

The patients gave their informed consent for the use of the data for research purposes.

Availability of data and materials

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

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This work was supported by the program of Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases (2020B1111170004).

Authors’ contributions

YM: Methodology, Writing; HYC: Conceptualization, Data Curation; FJH: Preparation of figures and tables; XLP: Methodology. JZ and FH: Methodology, Writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Mauriello JA Jr, Flanagan JC. Management of orbital inflammatory disease. A protocol. Surv Ophthalmol. 1984;29(2):104–16.
Lutt JR, Lim LL, Phal PM, et al. Orbital inflammatory disease. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2008;37(4):207–22.
Pakdaman MN, Sepahdari AR, Elkhamary SM. Orbital inflammatory disease: Pictorial review and differential diagnosis. World J Radiol. 2014;6(4):106–15.
Yuen SJ, Rubin PA. Idiopathic orbital inflammation: distribution, clinical features, and treatment outcome. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(4):491–9.
Mod H, Jha AK. Review of radiation therapy in benign ocular diseases. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2014;12(27):130–7.
Fardet L, Flahault A, Kettaneh A, et al. Corticosteroid-induced clinical adverse events: frequency, risk factors and patient's opinion. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157(1):142–8.
Boulanouar L, Grunenwald S, Imbert P, et al. Effect of orbital radiotherapy on the outcome of surgical orbital decompression for thyroid-associated orbitopathy (TAO): a retrospective study in 136 patients. Endocrine. 2020;67(3):605–12.
Mendenhall WM, Lessner AM. Orbital pseudotumor. Am J Clin Oncol. 2010;33(3):304–6.
Smitt MC, Donaldson SS. Radiation therapy for benign disease of the orbit. Semin Radiat Oncol. 1999;9(2):179–89.
Fionda B, Pagliara MM, Lancellotta V, et al. The Role of Radiotherapy in Orbital Pseudotumor: A Systematic Review of Literature. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2022;30(5):1162–7.
Prummel MF, Terwee CB, Gerding MN, et al. A randomized controlled trial of orbital radiotherapy versus sham irradiation in patients with mild Graves' ophthalmopathy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89(1):15–20.
Mourits MP, Kempen-Harteveld ML, García MB, et al. Radiotherapy for Graves' orbitopathy: randomised placebo-controlled study. Lancet. 2000;355(9214):1505–9.
Stiebel-Kalish H, Robenshtok E, Hasanreisoglu M, et al. Treatment modalities for Graves' ophthalmopathy: systematic review and metaanalysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94(8):2708–16.
Gorman CA. Radiotherapy for Graves’ ophthalmopathy: results at one year. Thyroid. 2002;12(3):251–5.
Feldon SE. Radiation therapy for Graves' ophthalmopathy: trick or treat? Ophthalmology. 2001;108(9):1521–2.
Matuszak MM, Yan D, Grills I, et al. Clinical applications of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77(2):608–16.
Hodapp N, The ICRU. Report 83: prescribing, recording and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Strahlenther Onkol;188(1):97–9.
Hahn E, Laperriere N, Millar BA, et al. Orbital radiation therapy for Graves' ophthalmopathy: measuring clinical efficacy and impact. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014;4(4):233–9.
Brown PD, Gondi V, Pugh S, et al. Hippocampal Avoidance During Whole-Brain Radiotherapy Plus Memantine for Patients With Brain Metastases: Phase III Trial NRG Oncology CC001. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(10):1019–29.
Prabhu RS, Liebman L, Wojno T, et al. Clinical outcomes of radiotherapy as initial local therapy for Graves’ ophthalmopathy and predictors of the need for post-radiotherapy decompressive surgery. Radiat Oncol. 2012;19:7.
Matthiesen C, Thompson JS, Thompson D, et al. The efficacy of radiation therapy in the treatment of Graves' orbitopathy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(1):117–23.
Li YJ, Luo Y, Xie XQ, et al. The efficacy of intensity modulated radiation therapy in treating thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy and predictive factors for treatment response. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):17533.

Table 1

Patient and disease characteristics
	Characteristic	Value
GO	Females/males, n	17 (47.2) /19 (52.8)
	Age(y), median (range)	45 (27–68)
	CTV volume, cm³, median (range)	69.26 (25.22–76.92)
	Location	Left eye: 0 Right eye: 2 Both eyes: 34
OP	Females/males, n	11 (52.4) /10 (47.6)
	Age(y), median (range)	43 (20–58)
	CTV volume, cm³, median (range)	32.61 (22.91–64.87)
	Location	Left eye:5 Right eye:11 Both eyes:5
IgG4-ROD	Females/males, n	1 (33.3) /2 (66.7)
	Age(y), median (range)	49 (34–51)
	CTV volume, cm³, median (range)	62.58 (32.12–66.65)
	Location	Left eye: 1 Right eye: 0 Both eyes: 2

Abbreviations: GO, graves’ ophthalmopathy; OP, orbital pseudotumor; IgG4-ROD, IgG4-related ophthalmic disease; CTV, clinical target volume.

Table 2

Radiotherapy planning optimization protocol (30 Gy/15f, for example)
Name of Structure	Dosimetric Parameter	Per Protocol	Notes
PTV_30	D_2%	≤ 37.5 Gy ^a	Dose to hottest 2% of PTV_30
	D_98%	≥ 25 Gy	Dose to 98% of PTV_30
	V_30Gy	≥ 95%	Volume receiving prescription dose of 30 Gy
Lens (Left side) ^b	D_max	≤ 6 Gy	Dose to hottest 0.03-cc volume of left lens
Lens (Right side) ^b	D_max	≤ 6 Gy	Dose to hottest 0.03-cc volume of right lens
Eyeball (Left side)	D_max	≤ 37.5 Gy ^a	Dose to hottest 0.03-cc volume of left eyeball
	D_mean	≤ 25 Gy	Mean dose to left eyeball
Eyeball (Right side)	D_max	≤ 37.5 Gy ^a	Dose to hottest 0.03-cc volume of right eyeball
	D_mean	≤ 25 Gy	Mean dose to right eyeball
Optic nerve (Left side)	D_max	≤ 37.5 Gy ^a	Dose to hottest 0.03-cc volume of left optic nerve
Optic nerve (Right side)	D_max	≤ 37.5 Gy ^a	Dose to hottest 0.03-cc volume of right optic nerve
Hippocampi (Left side)	D_max	≤ 16 Gy	Dose to hottest 0.03-cc volume of left hippocampi
	D_100%	≤ 9 Gy	Dose to 100% of left hippocampi
Hippocampi (Right side)	D_max	≤ 16 Gy	Dose to hottest 0.03-cc volume of right hippocampi
	D_100%	≤ 9 Gy	Dose to 100% of right hippocampi

Abbreviations: PTV, planning target volume; D, dose; cc, cubic centimeters.

^a 37.5 Gy is 125% of the prescription dose.

^bThere are no specified dose parameters for the lens avoidance region because this region represents a transition region for dosing.

Table 3

Target coverage and OARs sparing statistical results
Structures	Dosimetric Parameter	Value
PTV__P	V_P	95.80%
	V_125%	1.26%
Lens (Left side)	D_max (Gy)	5.4
Lens (Right side)	D_max (Gy)	5.4
Eyeball (Left side)	D_max (Gy)	22.3
	D_mean (Gy)	16.2
Eyeball (Right side)	D_max (Gy)	24.4
	D_mean (Gy)	17.6
Optic chiasm	D_max (Gy)	17.9
Optic nerve (left side)	D_max (Gy)	22.7
Optic nerve (Right side)	D_max (Gy)	24.4
Bilateral hippocampi (Left side)	D_max (Gy)	9.6
	D_100%(Gy)	2.3
Bilateral hippocampi (Right side)	D_max (Gy)	10.9
	D_100%(Gy)	3.4

Abbreviations: PTV, planning target volume; D, dose; cc, cubic centimeters.

Table 4

Corticosteroid therapy post orbital radiotherapy
Characteristic	GO (n = 34)	OP (n = 21)	IgG4-ROD (n = 3)	Overall(n = 58)
Able to discontinue Corticosteroids	20(58.9%)	11(52.4%)	1(33.3%)	32 (55.2%)
Unable to discontinue Corticosteroids	14(41.1%)	10(47.6%)	2(66.7%)	26 (44.8%)
Patients decrease in steroid dose in those who were unable to fully reduce their corticosteroid dose	9(26.5%)	9(42.9%)	2(66.7%)	20 (34.5%)
Responded to radiotherapy	29 (85.3%)	20 (95.2%)	3 (100.0%)	52 (89.7%)
Failed radiotherapy	5(14.7%)	1(4.8%)	0(0.0%)	6 (10.3%)

Abbreviations: GO, graves’ ophthalmopathy; OP, orbital pseudotumor; IgG4-ROD, IgG4-related ophthalmic disease.

Table 5

Symptom outcomes and long-term side effects post orbital radiotherapy
Outcome	GO (n = 34)	OP (n = 21)	IgG4-ROD (n = 3)	Overall (n = 58)
Symptom outcomes
Diplopia	30	18	2	50
Improved	18 (60.0%)	14 (77.8%)	1 (50.0%)	33 (66.0%)
Unchanged	8 (26.7%)	3 (16.7%)	1 (50.0%)	12 (24.0%)
Worsened	4 (13.3%)	1 (5.6%)	0 (0.0%)	5 (10.0%)
Proptosis	34	16	2	52
Improved	20 (58.8%)	12 (75.0%)	1 (50.0%)	33 (63.5%)
Unchanged	13 (38.2%)	4 (25.0%)	1 (50.0%)	18 (34.6%)
Worsened	1 (2.9%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (1.9%)
Decreased visual acuity	34	21	3	58
Improved	18 (52.9%)	12 (57.1%)	2 (66.7%)	32 (55.2%)
Unchanged	15 (44.1%)	8 (38.1%)	1 (33.3%)	24 (41.4%)
Worsened	1 (2.9%)	1(4.8%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (3.4%)
Restricted extraocular movements	26	17	2	45
Improved	17 (65.4%)	12 (70.6%)	1 (50.0%)	30 (66.7%)
Unchanged	8 (30.8%)	4 (23.5%)	1 (50.0%)	13 (28.9%)
Worsened	1 (3.8%)	1 (5.9%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (4.4%)
Long-term side effects	1	2	0	3
Dry eye syndrome	1(2.9%)	1(4.8%)	0(0.0%)	2(3.4%)
Lens opacities	0(0.0%)	1(4.8%)	0(0.0%)	1 (1.7%)

Abbreviations: GO, graves’ ophthalmopathy; OP, orbital pseudotumor; IgG4-ROD, IgG4-related ophthalmic disease.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
02 Sep, 2024
Reviews received at journal
12 Aug, 2024
Reviews received at journal
09 Aug, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
05 Aug, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
02 Aug, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
19 Jul, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
01 Jul, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
01 Jul, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
21 Jun, 2024
First submitted to journal
20 Jun, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Radiotherapy for Refractory, Corticosteroid-Resistant Orbital Inflammatory Diseases: Plan Design, Clinical Efficacy, and Prognosis/Outcomes

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Purpose

Methods and materials:

Results

Conclusions

Figures

Introduction

Methods and materials

Patients selection

Target delineation and plan design

Plan evaluation

Follow-up and Outcomes

Statistical Methods

Results

Patients Characteristics

Discussion

Conclusion

List Of Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1