To the Editor
We thank the authors for their response and welcome critical discussion on the potential of LDRT as a treatment for COVID-19 pneumonia. Kefayat and Ghahremani raise several valid points in their letter. Certainly further study on the matter is warranted. Based on historical evidence in the literature and the current pandemic status, the radiation therapy community would be justified in designing both pre-clinical and clinical trials to modern standards to investigate the effectiveness of LDRT against COVID-19 pneumonia using end points such as progression to the need for ventilator support, duration of hospitalization, length of intensive care, and overall mortality rates. We agree that the timing of the irradiation in relation to disease progression is likely to influence treatment outcomes. As such the treatment should be designed to emulate fast-track, palliative treatments with minimal planning and complexity in order to easily adapt to treating large numbers of patients in rapid response to a localized outbreak (e.g., parallel opposed pair chest treatments with standard linear accelerators). This constraint may challenge the authors’ proposition of TBI-type treatment which often requires specialized facilities and increases the plan complexity, although whole lung fields would still irradiate large volumes in order to encompass both lungs simultaneously.
We believe the risks to patients from such studies would be very low. Rates of radiation-induced pneumonitis after whole-lung irradiation for diffuse lung or bone metastasis or prophylactic treatments fall to negligible levels for single fractions of <600 cGy [1]. And while the interplay between radiation dose and viral activity is certainly complex, at the <100 cGy doses proposed, it is unlikely that radiation-induced immunosuppression will have a significant impact on overall disease progression. To date there are no indications that multiple imaging doses exacerbate COVID-19 symptoms. Even in the case of much higher palliative RT doses, consensus statements in the community suggest such treatments may proceed, concerns about population mixing and equipment sterilization notwithstanding [2].
Footnotes
The Editors of the Journal, the Publisher and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) cannot take responsibility for the statements or opinions expressed by the authors of these articles. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds or experiments described herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made. For more information see the editorial “Radiotherapy & Oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Vol. 146, 2020.
References
- 1.Marks L.B., Bentzen S.M., Deasy J.O. Radiation dose-volume effects in the lung. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:S70–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Thureau S., Faivre J.C., Assaker R. Adapting palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases during the covid-19 pandemic: Gemo position paper. J Bone Oncol. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2020.100291. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]