1
|
Hörberger F, Andersson KM, Enmark M, Kristensen I, Flejmer A, Edvardsson A. Pencil beam scanning proton therapy for mediastinal lymphomas in deep inspiration breath-hold: a retrospective assessment of plan robustness. Acta Oncol 2024; 63:62-69. [PMID: 38415848 DOI: 10.2340/1651-226x.2024.23964] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2023] [Accepted: 01/29/2024] [Indexed: 02/29/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE/BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy (PT) in deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) for mediastinal lymphoma patients, by retrospectively evaluating plan robustness to the clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) on repeated CT images acquired throughout treatment. Methods: Sixteen mediastinal lymphoma patients treated with PBS-PT in DIBH were included. Treatment plans (TPs) were robustly optimized on the CTV (7 mm/4.5%). Repeated verification CTs (vCT) were acquired during the treatment course, resulting in 52 images for the entire patient cohort. The CTV and OARs were transferred from the planning CT to the vCTs with deformable image registration and the TPs were recalculated on the vCTs. Target coverage and OAR doses at the vCTs were compared to the nominal plan. Deviation in lung volume was also calculated. RESULTS The TPs demonstrated high robust target coverage throughout treatment with D98%,CTV deviations within 2% for 14 patients and above the desired requirement of 95% for 49/52 vCTs. However, two patients did not achieve a robust dose to CTV due to poor DIBH reproducibility, with D98%,CTV at 78 and 93% respectively, and replanning was performed for one patient. Adequate OAR sparing was achieved for all patients. Total lung volume variation was below 10% for 39/52 vCTs. CONCLUSION PBS PT in DIBH is generally a robust technique for treatment of mediastinal lymphomas. However, closely monitoring the DIBH-reproducibility during treatment is important to avoid underdosing CTV and achieve sufficient dose-sparing of the OARs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Filip Hörberger
- Radiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Sweden.
| | | | - Marika Enmark
- Radiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Sweden; Department of Medical Physics, The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Ingrid Kristensen
- Radiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Sweden; Department of Clinical Sciences, Oncology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Anna Flejmer
- Department of Medical Physics, The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden; Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Department of Oncology, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Anneli Edvardsson
- Radiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Sweden; Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Galunic Bilic L, Santek F, Mitrovic Z, Basic-Kinda S, Dujmovic D, Vodanovic M, Mandac Smoljanovic I, Ostojic Kolonic S, Galunic Cicak R, Aurer I. Long-Term Results of IFRT vs. ISRT in Infradiaphragmal Fields in Aggressive Non-Hodgkins's Lymphoma Patients-A Single Centre Experience. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:649. [PMID: 38339400 PMCID: PMC10854861 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16030649] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2023] [Revised: 12/19/2023] [Accepted: 01/31/2024] [Indexed: 02/12/2024] Open
Abstract
(1) Background: This study aimed to examine the difference in efficacy and toxicity of involved-field (IFRT) and involved-site radiotherapy (ISRT) fields in infradiaphragmal aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients. (2) Methods: In total, 140 patients with infradiaphragmal lymphoma treated between 2003 and 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. There were 69 patients (49%) treated with IFRT, and 71 (51%) patients treated with ISRT. The median dose in the IFRT group was 36 Gy, (range 4-50.4 Gy), and in the ISRT group, it was 30 Gy (range 4-48 Gy). (3) Results: The median follow-up in the IFRT group was 133 months (95% CI 109-158), and in the ISRT group, it was 48 months (95% CI 39-57). In the IFRT group, locoregional control was 67%, and in the ISRT group, 73%. The 2- and 5-year overall survival (OS) in the IFRT and ISRT groups were 79% and 69% vs. 80% and 70%, respectively (p = 0.711). The 2- and 5-year event-free survival (EFS) in the IFRT and ISRT groups were 73% and 68% vs. 77% and 70%, respectively (p = 0.575). Acute side effects occurred in 43 (31%) patients, which is more frequent in the IFRT group, 34 (39%) patients, than in the ISRT group, 9 (13%) patients, p > 0.01. Late toxicities occurred more often in the IFRT group of patients, (10/53) 19%, than in the ISRT group of patients, (2/37) 5%, (p = 0.026). (4) Conclusions: By reducing the radiotherapy volume and the doses in the treatment of infradiaphragmatic fields, treatment with significantly fewer acute and long-term side effects is possible. At the same time, efficiency and local disease control are not compromised.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lea Galunic Bilic
- Department of Oncology, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia;
| | - Fedor Santek
- Department of Oncology, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia;
- School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; (Z.M.); (S.O.K.); (I.A.)
| | - Zdravko Mitrovic
- School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; (Z.M.); (S.O.K.); (I.A.)
- Division of Haematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Clinical Hospital Dubrava, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Sandra Basic-Kinda
- Division of Haematology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; (S.B.-K.); (D.D.); (M.V.)
| | - Dino Dujmovic
- Division of Haematology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; (S.B.-K.); (D.D.); (M.V.)
| | - Marijo Vodanovic
- Division of Haematology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; (S.B.-K.); (D.D.); (M.V.)
| | - Inga Mandac Smoljanovic
- Division of Haematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Clinical Hospital Merkur, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia;
| | - Slobodanka Ostojic Kolonic
- School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; (Z.M.); (S.O.K.); (I.A.)
- Division of Haematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Clinical Hospital Merkur, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia;
| | - Ruzica Galunic Cicak
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia;
| | - Igor Aurer
- School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; (Z.M.); (S.O.K.); (I.A.)
- Division of Haematology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; (S.B.-K.); (D.D.); (M.V.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Particle Therapy in Adult Patients with Pelvic Ewing Sarcoma-Tumor and Treatment Characteristics and Early Clinical Outcomes. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14246045. [PMID: 36551530 PMCID: PMC9775362 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14246045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2022] [Revised: 11/20/2022] [Accepted: 11/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To report dosimetric characteristics and early clinical outcomes in patients with pelvic Ewing sarcoma undergoing particle therapy. METHODS Patients ≥ 18 years old with pelvic Ewing sarcoma treated in adjuvant or definitive settings were considered for this retrospective analysis. Proton therapy was carried out with 45-60 Gy (RBE) (1.5-2 Gy (RBE) per fraction) and carbon ion therapy for recurrent disease with 51 Gy (RBE) (3 Gy (RBE) per fraction). Local control (LC), disease control (DC) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS For our sample, 21 patients were available, 18 of whom were treated for primary, 3 for locally recurrent and 16 for inoperable disease. The median CTV and PTV were 1215 cm3 and 1630 cm3. Median Dmean values for the PTV, bladder and rectum and median V40 Gy for the bowel for patients undergoing proton therapy were 56 Gy (RBE), 0.6 Gy (RBE), 9 Gy (RBE) and 15 cm3, respectively. At the end of particle therapy, G 1-2 skin reactions (n = 16/21) and fatigue (n = 9/21) were the main reported symptoms. After a median follow-up of 21 months, the 2-year LC, DC and OS were 76%, 56% and 86%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Particle therapy in adult pelvic Ewing sarcoma is feasible and provides excellent dosimetric results. First clinical outcomes are promising; however, further long-term follow-up is needed.
Collapse
|
4
|
Dionisi F, Scartoni D, Rombi B, Vennarini S, Righetto R, Farace P, Lorentini S, Schwarz M, Di Murro L, Demofonti C, D'Angelillo RM, Petrongari MG, Sanguineti G, Amichetti M. Consolidative active scanning proton therapy for mediastinal lymphoma: selection criteria, treatment implementation and clinical feasibility. Strahlenther Onkol 2022; 198:558-565. [PMID: 35394144 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-022-01918-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2021] [Accepted: 02/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
AIMS Proton therapy (PT) represents an advanced form of radiotherapy with unique physical properties which could be of great advantage in reducing long-term radiation morbidity for cancer survivors. Here, we aim to describe the whole process leading to the clinical implementation of consolidative active scanning proton therapy treatment (PT) for mediastinal lymphoma. METHODS The process included administrative, technical and clinical issues. Authorization of PT is required in all cases as mediastinal lymphoma is currently not on the list of diseases reimbursable by the Italian National Health Service. Technically, active scanning PT treatment for mediastinal lymphoma is complex, due to the interaction between actively scanned protons and the usually irregular and large volumes to be irradiated, the nearby healthy tissues and the target motion caused by breathing. A road map to implement the technical procedures was prepared. The clinical selection of patients was of utmost importance and took into account both patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS The first mediastinal lymphoma was treated at our PT center in 2018, four years after the start of the clinical activities. The treatment technique implementation included mechanical deep inspiration breath-hold simulation computed tomography (CT), clinical target volume (CTV)-based multifield optimization planning and plan robustness analysis. The ultimate authorization rate was 93%. In 4 cases a proton-photon plan comparison was required. Between May 2018 and February, 2021, 14 patients were treated with consolidative PT. The main clinical reasons for choosing PT over photons was a bulky disease in 8 patients (57%), patient's age in 11 patients (78%) and the proximity of the lymphoma to cardiac structures in 10 patients (71%). With a median follow-up of 15 months (range, 1-33 months) all patients but one (out-of-field relapse) are without evidence of disease, all are alive and no late toxicities were observed during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS The clinical implementation of consolidative active scanning PT for mediastinal lymphoma required specific technical procedures and a prolonged experience with PT treatments. An accurate selection of patients for which PT could be of advantage in comparison with photons is mandatory.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Dionisi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
| | - D Scartoni
- Proton Therapy unit, APSS, Trento, Italy
| | - B Rombi
- Proton Therapy unit, APSS, Trento, Italy
| | | | - R Righetto
- Proton Therapy unit, APSS, Trento, Italy
| | - P Farace
- Proton Therapy unit, APSS, Trento, Italy
| | | | - M Schwarz
- Proton Therapy unit, APSS, Trento, Italy
| | - L Di Murro
- Department of Radiotherapy, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - C Demofonti
- Department of Radiotherapy, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - R M D'Angelillo
- Department of Radiotherapy, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - M G Petrongari
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - G Sanguineti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Technical challenges in the treatment of mediastinal lymphomas by proton pencil beam scanning and deep inspiration breath-hold. Radiother Oncol 2022; 169:43-50. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.02.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2021] [Revised: 02/08/2022] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
|
6
|
Rosenbrock J, Baues C, Vasquez-Torres A, Clivio A, Fogliata A, Borchmann P, Marnitz S, Cozzi L. Volumetric modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated proton therapy in the irradiation of infra diaphragmatic Hodgkin Lymphoma in female patients. Acta Oncol 2022; 61:81-88. [PMID: 34596491 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2021.1986230] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the role of infra diaphragmatic intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for female Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) patients and to estimate the risk of secondary cancer and ovarian failure. METHODS A comparative treatment planning study was performed on 14 patients, and the results were compared according to conventional dose-volume metrics. In addition, estimates of the excess absolute risk (EAR) of secondary cancer induction were determined for the bowel, the bladder and the rectum. For the ovaries, the risk of ovarian failure was estimated. RESULTS The dosimetric findings demonstrate the equivalence between VMAT and IMPT in terms of target coverage. A statistically significant reduction of the mean and near-to-maximum doses was proven for the organs at risk. The EAR ratio estimated for IMPT to VMAT was 0.51 ± 0.32, 0.32 ± 0.35 and 0.05 ± 0.11 for the bowel, bladder and rectum, respectively. Concerning the risk of ovarian failure for the chronologic age ranging from 18 to 46 years, the expected net loss in fertility years ranged from 4.8 to 3.0 years for protons and 12.0 to 5.7 years for photons. CONCLUSION This in-silico study confirmed the beneficial role of IMPT from a dosimetric point of view. Mathematical models suggested that the use of protons might be further advantageous due to the expected reduction of the risk of secondary cancer induction and its milder impact on the reduction of fertility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Johannes Rosenbrock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CyberKnife and Radiation Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Christian Baues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CyberKnife and Radiation Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Andres Vasquez-Torres
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CyberKnife and Radiation Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | | | - Antonella Fogliata
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital and Cancer Center, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
| | - Peter Borchmann
- German Hodgkin Study Group, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
| | - Simone Marnitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CyberKnife and Radiation Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Luca Cozzi
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital and Cancer Center, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
König L, Haering P, Lang C, Splinter M, von Nettelbladt B, Weykamp F, Hoegen P, Lischalk JW, Herfarth K, Debus J, Hörner-Rieber J. Secondary Malignancy Risk Following Proton vs. X-ray Treatment of Mediastinal Malignant Lymphoma: A Comparative Modeling Study of Thoracic Organ-Specific Cancer Risk. Front Oncol 2020; 10:989. [PMID: 32733794 PMCID: PMC7358352 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00989] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2020] [Accepted: 05/19/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose: Proton radiotherapy (PRT) is potentially associated with a lower risk for secondary malignancies due to a decreased integral dose to the surrounding organs at risk (OARs). Prospective trials confirming this are lacking due to the need for long-term follow-up and the ethical complexities of randomizing patients between modalities. The objective of the current study is to calculate the risk for secondary malignancies following PRT and photon-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Materials and Methods: Twenty-three patients (16 female and seven male), previously treated with active scanning PRT for malignant mediastinal lymphoma at Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, were retrospectively re-planned using helical photon IMRT. The risk for radiation-induced secondary malignancies was estimated and evaluated using two distinct prediction models (1–4). Results: According to the Dasu model, the median absolute total risk for tumor induction following IMRT was 4.4% (range, 3.3–5.8%), 9.9% (range, 2.0–27.6%), and 1.0% (range, 0.5–1.5%) for lung, breast, and esophageal cancer, respectively. For PRT, it was significantly lower for the aforementioned organs at 1.6% (range, 0.7–2.1%), 4.5% (range, 0.0–15.5), and 0.8% (range, 0.0–1.6%), respectively (p ≤ 0.01). The mortality risk from secondary malignancies was also significantly reduced for PRT relative to IMRT at 1.1 vs. 3.1% (p ≤ 0.001), 0.9 vs. 1.9% (p ≤ 0.001), and 0.7 vs. 1.0% (p ≤ 0.001) for lung, breast, and esophageal tumors, respectively. Using the Schneider model, a significant risk reduction of 54.4% (range, 32.2–84.0%), 56.4% (range, 16.0–99.4%), and 24.4% (range, 0.0–99.0%) was seen for secondary lung, breast, and esophageal malignancies, favoring PRT vs. X-ray-based IMRT (p ≤ 0.01). Conclusion: Based on the two prediction models, PRT for malignant mediastinal lymphoma is expected to reduce the risk for radiation-induced secondary malignancies compared with the X-ray-based IMRT. The young age and the long natural history of patients diagnosed with mediastinal lymphoma predisposes them to a high risk of secondary malignancies following curative radiotherapy treatment and, as a consequence, potentially reducing this risk by utilizing advanced radiation therapy techniques such as PRT should be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laila König
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Peter Haering
- Department for Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Clemens Lang
- Department for Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mona Splinter
- Department for Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Bastian von Nettelbladt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Fabian Weykamp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Philipp Hoegen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jonathan W Lischalk
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Klaus Herfarth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department for Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Juliane Hörner-Rieber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department for Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with hodgkin's lymphoma. Assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15:12. [PMID: 31931861 PMCID: PMC6958567 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-1462-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2019] [Accepted: 01/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background To investigate the role of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for advanced supradiaphragmatic Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) in young female patients by assessing dosimetric features and modelling the risk of treatment related complications and radiation-induced secondary malignancies. Methods A group of 20 cases (planned according to the involved-site approach) were retrospectively investigated in a comparative planning study. Intensity modulated proton plans (IMPT) were compared to VMAT RapidArc plans (RA). Estimates of toxicity were derived from normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) calculations with either the Lyman or the Poisson models for a number of endpoints. Estimates of the risk of secondary cancer induction were determined for lungs, breasts, esophagus and thyroid. A simple model-based selection strategy was considered as a feasibility proof for the individualized selection of patients suitable for proton therapy. Results IMPT and VMAT plans resulted equivalent in terms of target dose distributions, both were capable to ensure high coverage and homogeneity. In terms of conformality, IMPT resulted ~ 10% better than RA plans. Concerning organs at risk, IMPT data presented a systematic improvement (highly significant) over RA for all organs, particularly in the dose range up to 20Gy. This lead to a composite average reduction of NTCP of 2.90 ± 2.24 and a reduction of 0.26 ± 0.22 in the relative risk of cardiac failures. The excess absolute risk per 10,000 patients-years of secondary cancer induction was reduced, with IMPT, of 9.1 ± 3.2, 7.2 ± 3.7 for breast and lung compared to RA. The gain in EAR for thyroid and esophagus was lower than 1. Depending on the arbitrary thresholds applied, the selection rate for proton treatment would have ranged from 5 to 75%. Conclusion In relation to young female patients with advanced supradiaphragmatic HL, IMPT can in general offer improved dose-volume sparing of organs at risk leading to an anticipated lower risk of early or late treatment related toxicities. This would reflect also in significantly lower risk of secondary malignancies induction compared to advanced photon based techniques. Depending on the selection thresholds and with all the limits of a non-validated and very basic model, it can be anticipated that a significant fraction of patients might be suitable for proton treatments if all the risk factors would be accounted for.
Collapse
|
9
|
Ricardi U, Maraldo MV, Levis M, Parikh RR. Proton Therapy For Lymphomas: Current State Of The Art. Onco Targets Ther 2019; 12:8033-8046. [PMID: 31632057 PMCID: PMC6781741 DOI: 10.2147/ott.s220730] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2019] [Accepted: 09/13/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
The combination of brief chemo-radiotherapy provides high cure rates and represents the first line of treatment for many lymphoma patients. As a result, a high proportion of long-term survivors may experience treatment-related toxic events many years later. Excess and unintended radiation dose to organs at risk (particularly heart, lungs and breasts) may translate in an increased risk of cardiovascular events and second cancers after a few decades. Minimizing dose to organs at risk is thus pivotal to restrain the risk of long-term complications. Proton therapy, with its peculiar physic properties, may help to better spare organs at risk and consequently to reduce toxicities especially in patients receiving mediastinal radiotherapy. Herein, we review the physical basis of proton therapy and the rationale for its implementation in lymphoma patients, with a detailed description of the clinical data. We also discuss the potential disadvantages and uncertainties of protons that may limit their application and critically review the dosimetric studies comparing the risk of late complications between proton and photon radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Maja V Maraldo
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Mario Levis
- Department of Oncology, University of Torino, Torino, Italy
| | - Rahul R Parikh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| |
Collapse
|