Low Dose Radiation Therapy for COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Currently, there is a global outbreak of COVID-19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). On March 11, 2020, the WHO has declared COVID-19 as a pandemic and as on 14^th Novemebr 2020, there are a total of 52487476 confirmed cases and 1290653 deaths. (1) The clinical spectrum of COVID-19 varies from asymptomatic to clinical conditions characterized by respiratory failure that necessitates mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) support. Severe pneumonia progressing to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is the cause of death in majority of cases. The death rate ranges from 2-15% in different group of patients. (2,3,4)

Currently, there is no vaccine or specific antiviral drug available for COVID-19. The treatment is symptomatic, and oxygen therapy represents the major treatment intervention for patients with severe infection. Based on severity of symptoms, there are several scoring methods which can predict the outcome of disease. The NEWS is a popular scoring system used for non-ICU patients suffering from acute illness. (5) This score helps in quickly determining the degree of illness and intervention required. It also provides likelihood of death or admission to an ICU. Based on this score, any illness can be categorized as mild (Score <4), moderate (Score 5-6 or individual 3) and severe (Score ≥7). According to this scoring system, COVID-19 patients having a score of 5-6 will have probability of 15.7% critical events (ICU admission or 30-day mortality) and those having score≥7 will have about 24.1% critical events.(5)

The pathogenesis of COVID-19 pneumonitis appears to involve a cytokine storm with elevated pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and TNFα among many others, leading to respiratory failure. (6) Radiation therapy (RT) in low doses (<100 cGy) is known to have its anti-inflammatory action by downregulating pro-inflammatory macrophages and upregulating anti-inflammatory macrophages (interleukin-10, transforming growth factor β1) and natural killer (NK) T cells thus countering the immune reaction incited by COVID-19. (7) Low dose lung irradiation can potentially mitigate the severity of pneumonitis thereby reducing the risk of death. It was a popular treatment of viral pneumonias until 1940s. (8) Historical data (9-13) suggests that LDRT to whole lung can possibly prevent cytokine storm and ARDS. A few recent trials (14, 15), though with small sample size and short-term results have shown encouraging results with LDRT doses ranging from 0.5-1.5 Gy. We therefore conducted a pilot trial to study the feasibility and clinical efficacy of LDRT to lungs in the management of patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This pilot study was conducted at our Institute to assess feasibility and clinical efficacy of LDRT in patients with COVID-19. The study was initiated after approval by Institute Ethics committee (Ref. No. IEC-465/22.05.2020, RP-01/2020). It is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394793) and Clinical Trials Registry India (CTRI/2020/06/025862). The study protocol was designed jointly by the radiation oncology team and Institute COVID Management Team (comprising of members from departments of Internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, intensive care, hospital infection control committee). The sample size of 10 patients was determined based on multiple factors like incidence of COVID-19 disease, severity of disease, risk of viral exposure to radiation oncology team, availability of radiation therapy resources, distance between the COVID-19 indoor unit and radiation therapy machine etc. Eligible patients (as per inclusion criteria) were enrolled in the study after obtaining their consent. In order to avoid viral exposure to team, video conference facility was used while counseling them and taking their consent. Complete details about the trial, steps involved, benefits or side effects of treatment were explained to every patient.

RESULTS

A total of 10 patients were recruited and treated from June to Aug 2020. Table 2 shows various clinical characteristics of the patients. All the patients were male with a median age of 51 years (range 38 to 63 years). The shortness of breath was the commonest symptoms, found in all patients. The median respiratory rate was 22 per minute (range 21-27 per minute). Majority of patients (8 out of 10) had NEWS of 5-6. Three patients had co-morbidities (hypertension, 2 and diabetes, 1).

LDRT was delivered after a mean of 3 days (range 1-9 days) of indoor admission (Table 3). Two patients (patient no. 3 and 8) received LDRT after 6 and 9 days of hospitalization respectively as they were having mild symptoms initially. All patients completed the prescribed LDRT. Average time taken for LDRT (from entering to exiting treatment room) was 11 minutes (8-34 minutes). One patient took unexpectedly longer time during treatment (34 minutes) due to technical problem in switching on the machine. Another patient took 19 minutes since the radiation therapy technologist had difficulty in starting the treatment due to fogging inside wall of face shield. No patient required RT interruption due to deterioration of vitals or oxygen saturation.

Table 3 shows the progress in NEWS post LDRT. One patient, showed clinical deterioration and had to be intubated. He finally succumbed of ARDS on day 24. Rest 9 patients had complete clinical response and finally discharged from the hospital after their COVID test was negative. The average hospital stay of the cured patients was 15 days (range 10-24 days). Fig. 1 depicts the speed of clinical recovery. Most patients achieved a NEWS of 0 by Day-7. Day-30 clinical status was determined by communicating the patients or relatives on phone. All 9 patients discharged from hospital were alive. No patients showed the signs of acute radiation toxicity.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 1:

Graph showing post LDRT response as per National Early Warning Score.

DISCUSSION

The results of our study have proven the feasibility of using LDRT for treatment of COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe risk disease. All patients completed the prescribed treatment without any hurdles. None of the radiation therapy team members involved in LDRT of these patients acquired COVID-19 infection. We used simple, open field technique for RT to minimize the radiation planning and delivery time. No patient showed any signs of acute toxicity and therefore it is clinically safe.

In terms of clinical improvement, we observed 90% clinical response rate in our study which This suggests that LDRT is clinically efficacious in COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe illnes.

Only one patient, who had associated co-morbidity (HT) did not respond to LDRT and died of ARDS. It is well known that the patients with co-morbidities have higher risk of mortality. The other 2 patients in our series (patient no. 5 and 7) who had co-morbidities had good response and recovered within a week and discharged in less than 2 weeks of LDRT. Overall results of our study have been very encouraging and justifies the conduction of future randomized controlled trial with larger sample size. Besides clinical efficacy, LDRT also helps in averting the need of ICU admission. ICU care consumes lot of manpower resources and cost which are constrained in developing countries like India having high incidence of COVID-19.

The initial report using X-rays to treat patients with pneumonia was in 1907 by Edsall and Pemberton (9). Subsequent reports till 1940s suggested that LDRT was successful in decreasing the mortality rate in untreated patients from about 30% to 5-10%. (10-13) In 1943, Oppenheimer (13) reported the results of LDRT using 50 rontgen in 56 patients of viral pneumonia and observed cure rate of 80%. During that time, there was no concept of lung correction factor and therefore the actual dose delivered to lungs in Oppenheimer’s study was more than 50 rontgen. He further observed that if radiation was delivered in the first week of disease phase, the cure rate was 100% as compared to 50% when delivered after 2 weeks. Despite good clinical results reported in these trials (10-13), LDRT slowly vanished after the arrival of penicillin. Kirkby and Mackenzie first suggested the use of LDRT in current COVID-19. (16)

Recently, two studies (14, 15), to the best of our knowledge, have been published reporting the use of LDRT for COVID-19 and ours is the third one being reported here. Table 4 shows the comparison of these two studies with our present study. Our study has the largest sample size (10 vs 5 vs 5 patients). Both trials (14, 15) had higher median age and co-morbidities as compared to ours. LDRT dose was highest in the study by Hess at al. (15) Though it is difficult to compare clinical outcome due to small sample sizes in all three studies (Table 4), the recovery rate was relatively higher in our study (90% vs 80% vs 80%). This is probably because our patients had relatively less severe disease and lower frequency of co-morbidities. We believe LDRT is most effective in averting the cytokine storm and therefore may be used before the cytokine storm has set in. Therefore our study was designed to enroll patients with moderate to severe illness.

Castillo et al. (17) have recently published a report of 64 year old patient treated with LDRT. They adopted CT based planning prescribing a dose of 1.0 Gy with VMAT technique. Clinical target volume (CTV) consisting of whole lung and (OAR) were contoured. A circumferential 5-mm and craniocaudal 10-mm PTV expansion was created. Procedure duration consisted of 30 minutes planning and about 13 minutes of treatment delivery (including cone beam CT scan performance). The patient showed improvement after 3 days of LDRT and shifted out of ICU after 6 days. We do not encourage CT based planning considering negligible dose to OAR due to low prescription dose.

Although it is hypothesized that LDRT potentially mitigate the COVID-19 pneumonitis by inducing an anti-inflammatory effect; animal, human and in vitro studies indicate that LDRT may have the potential to control bacterial pneumonia. (18) Therefore, LDRT may also be capable of reducing bacterial co-infections in patients with COVID-19. Additionally, LDRT might prevent accelerated viral drug-related mutation thus potentially improving the immune response by means of the enhanced RNA damage compared to antiviral therapy. (18, 19)

Whenever RT is employed for benign conditions, concerns are expressed about risk of radiation induced carcinogenesis. It is often ignored that even without radiation exposure; a healthy human being does carry a certain amount of life-time risk of developing cancer. The excess absolute risk (EAR) induced by radiation exposure is determined by the below formula proposed by Preston considering the β = 10, θ = − 0.05 and γ = 1.

According to this formula, the increase in EAR is about 0.4% for 0.5 Gy and 1.2% for 1.5 Gy over a 20 year period. The LDRT involves only thoracic organs as OAR rather than whole body exposure thus further minimizing the risk. This EAR is negligible considering the potential benefit of LDRT in the current pandemic.

Our study has several limitations including small sample size and response assessment without radiological or laboratory investigations. We wanted to keep the study design simple and convenient for smooth conduction considering the fear of radiation exposure amongst the patient population and also the panic in radiation therapy team which is primarily a non-COVID team. There are several ongoing trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04427566, NCT04572412, NCT04377477, NCT04493294 and NCT04393948) with primary outcome assessment based on clinical parameters. (21)

In conclusion, the results of our pilot study suggest that LDRT is feasible and clinically effective in COVID-19 patients having moderate to severe disease. Based on the encouraging results of two recently published trials (14, 15) and our study, it is justified to conduct large randomized controlled trials to establish the clinical efficacy of LDRT to reduce the COVID-19 mortality.

Interpretation

• A low score (NEWS 1–4) should prompt assessment by a competent registered nurse who should decide if a change to frequency of clinical monitoring or an escalation of clinical care is required.

• A medium score (i.e. NEWS of 5–6 or a RED score) should prompt an urgent review by a clinician skilled with competencies in the assessment of acute illness – usually a ward-based doctor or acute team nurse, who should consider whether escalation of care to a team with critical-care skills is required (ie critical care outreach team).

  • A RED score refers to an extreme variation in a single physiological parameter (i.e., a score of 3 on the NEWS chart in any one physiological parameter, colored RED to aid identification; e.g., heart rate

• A high score (NEWS ≥7) should prompt emergency assessment by a clinical team/critical care outreach team with critical-care competencies and usually transfer of the patient to a higher dependency care area.