Acute toxicities in proton therapy for head and neck cancer - A matched analysis of the DAHANCA 35 feasibility study

Background and purpose

As preparation for a national randomized study comparing proton radiotherapy to photon radiotherapy, DAHANCA 35, we performed a non-randomized pilot study to investigate patient selection, logistics, planning, and treatment delivery. With the present study, as a comprehensive safety analysis, we want to compare toxicity during and up to two months after therapy to a historically matched group of patients treated with photon radiotherapy.

Materials and methods

62 patients treated with protons were matched to 124 patients who received photon treatment outside a protocol. Available data were retrieved from the DAHANCA database. Patients were matched on treatment centre, concurrent chemotherapy, tumour site, stage, p16 status for oropharynx cancers. Selection of patients for proton therapy was based on comparative treatment plans with a NTCP reduction for dysphagia and xerostomia at six months.

Results

Baseline characteristics between groups were well balanced, except for the type of drug used concurrently; more photon patients received Carboplatin (21.2 % vs 5.8 %, p = 0.01). Proton therapy was associated with significantly less weight loss at the end of treatment, mean weight loss of 3 % for protons and 5 % for photons (p < 0.001). There were more grade 3 skin reactions and grade 3 mucositis after proton treatment compared with photons at the end of treatment, Risk Ratio (RR) 1.9 (95 % CI: 1.01-3.5, p = 0.04) and RR 1.5 (95 % CI: 1.3-1.7, p < 0.001), respectively. All differences resolved at follow up two months after treatment. There were no significant differences between groups on opioid use, use of feeding tubes, or hospitalization during the observation period.

Conclusion

Proton treatment resulted in excess objective mucositis and dermatitis, which was transient and did not seem to negatively influence weight or treatment compliance and intensity. Selection bias was likely especially since NTCP models were used for selection of proton treatment and photon treated patients were matched manually. We are currently including patients in a randomized controlled trial.

Considerations for study design in the DAHANCA 35 trial of protons versus photons for head and neck cancer

Proton radiotherapy offers a dosimetric advantage compared to photon therapy in sparing normal tissue, but the clinical evidence for toxicity reductions in the treatment of head and neck cancer is limited. The Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group (DAHANCA) has initiated the DAHANCA 35 randomised trial to clarify the value of proton therapy (NCT04607694). The DAHANCA 35 trial is performed in an enriched population of patients selected by an anticipated benefit of proton therapy to reduce the risk of late dysphagia or xerostomia based on normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) modelling. We present our considerations on the trial design and a test of the selection procedure conducted before initiating the randomised study.

Dose and robustness comparison of nominal, daily and accumulated doses for photon and proton treatment of sinonasal cancer

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to evaluate and compare the dosimetric effect and robustness towards day-to-day anatomical and setup variations in the delivered dose for photon and proton treatments of sinonasal cancer (SNC) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Photon (VMAT) and proton (IMPT) plans were optimized retrospectively for 24 SNC patients. Synthetic CTs (synCT) were obtained by deforming the planning CT (pCT) to the anatomy of every daily cone-beam CT. Both VMAT and IMPT plans were recalculated on the synCTs. The recalculated daily dose was accumulated over the whole treatment on the pCT. Target coverage and dose to organs and risk (OARs) were evaluated for all patients for the nominal, daily and accumulated dose distribution.

RESULTS

In general, dose to OARs farther away from the target, including brain, chiasm and contralateral optic nerve, was lower for proton plans than photon plans. Whereas, OARs in proximity of the target received a lower dose for photon plans. For proton plans, the target coverage (volume of CTV receiving 95% of prescribed dose), V95%, fell below 99% for 9/24 patients in one or more fractions. For photon plans, 4/24 patients had one or more fractions where V95% fell below 99%. For accumulated doses, V95% was below 99% only in two cases, but above 98% for all patients.

CONCLUSION

Photon and proton treatment have different strengths regarding OAR sparing. The robustness was high for both treatment modalities. Patient selection for either proton or photon radiation therapy of SNC patients should be based on a case-by-case comparison.

A comparison of two methods for segmentation of functional volumes in radiotherapy planning of lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND

In radiotherapy (RT) of lung cancer, dose to functional lung (FL) volumes segmented with two different methods (perfusion SPECT (Q-SPECT) and 4D-CT (4D) ventilation (V)) have been shown to correlate with the incidence of radiation pneumonitis (RP). This study aims to compare the FL volumes identified by both methods.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty lung cancer patients had a 4D and Q-SPECT prior to treatment. Seventeen of these patients also had a ventilation SPECT (V-SPECT). FL sub-volumes were segmented automatically, using cut-off values. The volumes were compared in terms of overlap fraction (OF) relative to the minimal volume, and intersection fraction (IF) of the FL volume relative to the total lung volume (V_Lung).

RESULTS

Cut-off values suggested in literature for Q-SPECT and 4D-V resulted in volumes differing in size by a median 18% [6%;31%], and a median OF and IF of 0.48 [0.23;0.70] and 0.09 [0.02;0.25], respectively. Segmenting volumes of comparable size of about 1/3 of V_Lung (FL-m(1/3), m = method) resulted in a median OF and IF of 0.43 [0.23;0.58] and 0.12 [0.06;0.19], respectively. Twenty-five patients (83%) had a reasonable overlap between FL-Q(1/3) and FL-4D-V(1/3) volumes, with OF values above 0.33. IF increased significantly (p = .036) compared to using fixed cut-off values. Similarly, volumes of comparable size of about 1/3 V_Lung were produced for V-SPECT, and FL-Q(1/3), FL-V(1/3), and FL-4D-V(1/3) were compared. The overlaps and intersections of FL-V(1/3) with FL-Q(1/3) volumes were significantly (p<.001) larger than the corresponding overlaps and intersections of FL-Q(1/3) with FL-4D(1/3) and FL-V(1/3) with FL-4D(1/3).

CONCLUSION

The Q-SPECT and 4D-V methods do not segment entirely the same FL volumes. A reasonable overlap of the volumes along with the findings of other studies that both correlate to RP incidence, suggests that a combination of both volumes, e.g. using the IF, may be useful in RT treatment planning.

Air variability in maxillary sinus during radiotherapy for sinonasal carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to characterise patterns and predictability of aeration changes in the ipsilateral maxillary sinus during intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for sinonasal cancer (SNC), and in a sample evaluate the dosimetric effects of aeration changes for both photon and proton therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included patients treated with IMRT for SNC in a single institution in 2009-2017. The volume of air in the ipsilateral maxillary sinus was recorded in 1578 daily cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) from 53 patients. Patterns of changing air volumes were categorised as 'stable', increasing', 'decreasing', or 'erratic'. For the prediction analysis, categorisation was performed based both on the entire treatment course and the first five fractions (F1-5). Photon and proton therapy plans were generated for four patients, the one from each category with the largest aeration variation. Synthetic CT images were generated for each CBCT and all plans were recalculated on the daily synthetic CTs.

RESULTS

The absolute volume of air varied considerably during the treatment course, ranging from 0 to 25.9 cm3. Changes within a single participant varied in the range of 0-18.7 cm3. In the categorisation of patterns, most patients had increasing aeration of the sinus. Generally, patterns of aeration could not be predicted from F1-5. Patients categorised as increasing in F1-5 had the best prediction, with 78% predicted correctly as increasing for the entire treatment course. The numeric correlation coefficients for target coverage and air volume were low for 3/4 scenarios (photons 0.03-0.23, protons 0.26-0.48). No straightforward correlation between the dosimetric effect and the volume changes could be detected in the sample test of four patients for neither photon nor proton therapy.

CONCLUSION

The variation of aeration was large and unpredictable. No clear dosimetric consequences of the aeration variation were evident for neither IMRT nor proton therapy for the patients investigated.