1
|
Liu Y, Liu P, Gao XS, Wang Z, Lyu F, Shi A, Wang W, Gao Y, Liao A, Zhao J, Ding X. Dosimetric comparison of IMPT vs VMAT for multiple lung lesions: an NTCP model-based decision-making strategy. Med Dosim 2024:S0958-3947(24)00029-3. [PMID: 39013723 DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2024.06.001] [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: 02/11/2024] [Revised: 06/02/2024] [Accepted: 06/04/2024] [Indexed: 07/18/2024]
Abstract
To compare the dosimetric differences in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of multiple lung lesions and determine a normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model-based decision strategy that determines which treatment modality the patient will use. A total of 41 patients were retrospectively selected for this study. The number of patients with 1-6 lesions was 5, 16, 7, 6, 3, and 4, respectively. A prescription dose of 70 GyRBE in 10 fractions was given to each lesion. SBRT plans were generated using VMAT and IMPT. All the IMPT plans used robustness optimization with ± 3.5% range uncertainties and 5 mm setup uncertainties. Dosimetric metrics and the predicted NTCP value of radiation pneumonitis (RP), esophagitis, and pericarditis were analyzed to evaluate the potential clinical benefits between different planning groups. In addition, a threshold for the ratio of PTV to lungs (%) to determine whether a patient would benefit highly from IMPT was determined using receiver operating characteristic curves. All plans reached target coverage (V70GyRBE ≥ 95%). Compared with VMAT, IMPT resulted in a significantly lower dose of most thoracic normal tissues. For the 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 lesion groups, the lung V5 was 29.90 ± 9.44%, 58.33 ± 13.35%, and 81.02 ± 5.91% for VMAT and 11.34 ± 3.11% (p < 0.001), 21.45 ± 3.80% (p < 0.001), and 32.48 ± 4.90% (p < 0.001) for IMPT, respectively. The lung V20 was 12.07 ± 4.94%, 25.57 ± 6.54%, and 43.99 ± 11.83% for VMAT and 6.76 ± 1.80% (p < 0.001), 13.14 ± 2.27% (p < 0.01), and 19.62 ± 3.48% (p < 0.01) for IMPT. The Dmean of the total lung was 7.65 ± 2.47 GyRBE, 14.78 ± 2.75 GyRBE, and 21.64 ± 4.07 GyRBE for VMAT and 3.69 ± 1.04 GyRBE (p < 0.001), 7.13 ± 1.41 GyRBE (p < 0.001), and 10.69 ± 1.81 GyRBE (p < 0.001) for IMPT. Additionally, in the VMAT group, the maximum NTCP value of radiation pneumonitis was 73.91%, whereas it was significantly lower in the IMPT group at 10.73%. The accuracy of our NTCP model-based decision model, which combines the number of lesions and PTV/Lungs (%), was 97.6%. The study demonstrated that the IMPT SBRT for multiple lung lesions had satisfactory dosimetry results, even when the number of lesions reached 6. The NTCP model-based decision strategy presented in our study could serve as an effective tool in clinical practice, aiding in the selection of the optimal treatment modality between VMAT and IMPT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yang Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, 100034, China
| | - Peilin Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont University hospital, Corewell Health, Detroit, 48073, USA
| | - Xian-Shu Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, 100034, China.
| | - Zishen Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hebei Yizhou Cancer Hospital, Baoding, 072750, China
| | - Feng Lyu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, 100034, China
| | - Anhui Shi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, 100142, China
| | - Weihu Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, 100142, China
| | - Yan Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, 100034, China
| | - Anyan Liao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing United Family Medical Center, Beijing, 100015, China
| | - Jing Zhao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing United Family Medical Center, Beijing, 100015, China
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont University hospital, Corewell Health, Detroit, 48073, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wu XY, Chen M, Cao L, Li M, Chen JY. Proton Therapy in Breast Cancer: A Review of Potential Approaches for Patient Selection. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2024; 23:15330338241234788. [PMID: 38389426 PMCID: PMC10894553 DOI: 10.1177/15330338241234788] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2023] [Revised: 11/25/2023] [Accepted: 02/06/2024] [Indexed: 02/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Proton radiotherapy may be a compelling technical option for the treatment of breast cancer due to its unique physical property known as the "Bragg peak." This feature offers distinct advantages, promising superior dose conformity within the tumor area and reduced radiation exposure to surrounding healthy tissues, enhancing the potential for better treatment outcomes. However, proton therapy is accompanied by inherent challenges, primarily higher costs and limited accessibility when compared to well-developed photon irradiation. Thus, in clinical practice, it is important for radiation oncologists to carefully select patients before recommendation of proton therapy to ensure the transformation of dosimetric benefits into tangible clinical benefits. Yet, the optimal indications for proton therapy in breast cancer patients remain uncertain. While there is no widely recognized methodology for patient selection, numerous attempts have been made in this direction. In this review, we intended to present an inspiring summarization and discussion about the current practices and exploration on the approaches of this treatment decision-making process in terms of treatment-related side-effects, tumor control, and cost-efficiency, including the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model, the tumor control probability (TCP) model, genomic biomarkers, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), and so on. Additionally, we conducted an evaluation of the eligibility criteria in ongoing randomized controlled trials and analyzed their reference value in patient selection. We evaluated the pros and cons of various potential patient selection approaches and proposed possible directions for further optimization and exploration. In summary, while proton therapy holds significant promise in breast cancer treatment, its integration into clinical practice calls for a thoughtful, evidence-driven strategy. By continuously refining the patient selection criteria, we can harness the full potential of proton radiotherapy while ensuring maximum benefit for breast cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiao-Yu Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Mei Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Lu Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Min Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Jia-Yi Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Yan S, Ngoma TA, Ngwa W, Bortfeld TR. Global democratisation of proton radiotherapy. Lancet Oncol 2023; 24:e245-e254. [PMID: 37269856 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00184-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2023] [Revised: 04/05/2023] [Accepted: 04/19/2023] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
Proton radiotherapy is an advanced treatment option compared with conventional x-ray treatment, delivering much lower doses of radiation to healthy tissues surrounding the tumour. However, proton therapy is currently not widely available. In this Review, we summarise the evolution of proton therapy to date, together with the benefits to patients and society. These developments have led to an exponential growth in the number of hospitals using proton radiotherapy worldwide. However, the gap between the number of patients who should be treated with proton radiotherapy and those who have access to it remains large. We summarise the ongoing research and development that is contributing to closing this gap, including the improvement of treatment efficiency and efficacy, and advances in fixed-beam treatments that do not require an enormously large, heavy, and costly gantry. The ultimate goal of decreasing the size of proton therapy machines to fit into standard treatment rooms appears to be within reach, and we discuss future research and development opportunities to achieve this goal.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susu Yan
- Division of Radiation Biophysics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Twalib A Ngoma
- Department Clinical Oncology, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
| | - Wilfred Ngwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Information and Sciences, ICT University, Yaoundé, Cameroon
| | - Thomas R Bortfeld
- Division of Radiation Biophysics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Aristei C, Kaidar-Person O, Boersma L, Leonardi MC, Offersen B, Franco P, Arenas M, Bourgier C, Pfeffer R, Kouloulias V, Bölükbaşı Y, Meattini I, Coles C, Luis AM, Masiello V, Palumbo I, Morganti AG, Perrucci E, Tombolini V, Krengli M, Marazzi F, Trigo L, Borghesi S, Ciabattoni A, Ratoša I, Valentini V, Poortmans P. The 2022 Assisi Think Tank Meeting: White paper on optimising radiation therapy for breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2023:104035. [PMID: 37244324 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104035] [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: 02/23/2023] [Revised: 05/11/2023] [Accepted: 05/23/2023] [Indexed: 05/29/2023] Open
Abstract
The present white paper, referring to the 4th Assisi Think Tank Meeting on breast cancer, reviews state-of-the-art data, on-going studies and research proposals. < 70% agreement in an online questionnaire identified the following clinical challenges: 1: Nodal RT in patients who have a) 1-2 positive sentinel nodes without ALND (axillary lymph node dissection); b) cN1 disease transformed into ypN0 by primary systemic therapy and c) 1-3 positive nodes after mastectomy and ALND. 2. The optimal combination of RT and immunotherapy (IT), patient selection, IT-RT timing, and RT optimal dose, fractionation and target volume. Most experts agreed that RT- IT combination does not enhance toxicity. 3: Re-irradiation for local relapse converged on the use of partial breast irradiation after second breast conserving surgery. Hyperthermia aroused support but is not widely available. Further studies are required to finetune best practice, especially given the increasing use of re-irradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Aristei
- Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy.
| | - O Kaidar-Person
- Breast Radiation Unit, Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - L Boersma
- Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - M C Leonardi
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - B Offersen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - P Franco
- Depatment of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont and Department of Radiation Oncology, 'Maggiore della Carita`' University Hospital, Novara, Italy
| | - M Arenas
- Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Universitari Sant Hoan de Reus, IISPV, Spain
| | - C Bourgier
- Radiation Oncology, ICM-Val d' Aurelle, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | - R Pfeffer
- Oncology Institute, Assuta Medical Center, Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion University Medical School, Israel
| | - V Kouloulias
- 2nd Department of Radiology, Radiotherapy Unit, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
| | - Y Bölükbaşı
- Koc University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - I Meattini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence & Radiation Oncology Unit - Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - C Coles
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK
| | - A Montero Luis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - V Masiello
- Unità Operativa di Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagine, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCSS Roma, Italy
| | - I Palumbo
- Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | - A G Morganti
- DIMES, Alma Mater Studiorum Bologna University, Bologna, Italy; Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Alma Mater Studiorum Bologna University; Bologna, Italy
| | - E Perrucci
- Radiation Oncology Section, Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | - V Tombolini
- Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Science, University "La Sapienza", Roma, Italy
| | - M Krengli
- DISCOG, Università di Padova e Istituto Oncologico Veneto - IRCCS
| | - F Marazzi
- Unità Operativa di Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagine, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCSS Roma, Italy
| | - L Trigo
- Service of Brachytherapy, Department of Image and Radioncology, Instituto Português Oncologia Porto Francisco Gentil E.P.E., Portugal
| | - S Borghesi
- Radiation Oncology Unit of Arezzo-Valdarno, Azienda USL Toscana Sud Est, Italy
| | - A Ciabattoni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, San Filippo Neri Hospital, ASL Rome 1, Rome, Italy
| | - I Ratoša
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - V Valentini
- Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore e Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCSS Roma, Italy
| | - P Poortmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Iridium Kankernetwerk, Antwerp, Belgium; University of Antwerp, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Tommasino F, Cartechini G, Righetto R, Farace P, Cianchetti M. Does variable RBE affect toxicity risks for mediastinal lymphoma patients? NTCP-based evaluation after proton therapy treatment. Phys Med 2023; 108:102569. [PMID: 36989976 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2022] [Revised: 02/04/2023] [Accepted: 03/18/2023] [Indexed: 03/29/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Mediastinal lymphoma (ML) is a solid malignancy affecting young patients. Modern combined treatments allow obtaining good survival probability, together with a long life expectancy, and therefore with the need to minimize treatment-related toxicities. We quantified the expected toxicity risk for different organs and endpoints in ML patients treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) at our centre, accounting also for uncertainties related to variable RBE. METHODS Treatment plans for ten ML patients were recalculated with a TOPAS-based Monte Carlo code, thus retrieving information on LET and allowing the estimation of variable RBE. Published NTCP models were adopted to calculate the toxicity risk for hypothyroidism, heart valve defects, coronary heart disease and lung fibrosis. NTCP was calculated assuming both constant (i.e. 1.1) and variable RBE. The uncertainty associated with individual radiosensitivity was estimated by random sampling α/β values before RBE evaluation. RESULTS Variable RBE had a minor impact on hypothyroidism risk for 7 patients, while it led to significant increase for the remaining three (+24% risk maximum increase). Lung fibrosis was slightly affected by variable RBE, with a maximum increase of ≅ 1%. This was similar for heart valve dysfunction, with the exception of one patient showing an about 10% risk increase, which could be explained by means of large heart volume and D1 increase. DISCUSSION The use of NTCP models allows for identifying those patients associated with a higher toxicity risk. For those patients, it might be worth including variable RBE in plan evaluation.
Collapse
|
6
|
Thijssen SV, Boersma LJ, Heising L, Swart RR, X J Ou C, Roumen C, J G Jacobs M. Clues to address barriers for access to proton therapy in the Netherlands. Radiother Oncol 2023; 178:109432. [PMID: 36464178 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.11.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2022] [Accepted: 11/27/2022] [Indexed: 12/05/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The Netherlands has National Indication Protocols on proton therapy (PT) to select patients who benefit most from PT. However, referrals to proton therapy centres (PTCs) are lagging. The objective of this research is to identify the barriers for access to PT and to design interventions to address these barriers. MATERIAL AND METHODS We conducted a nationwide survey among radiation oncologists (ROs), and semi- structured in-depth interviews with ROs and patients. Subsequently, four workshops were held, in which ROs from one PTC and ROs from referring hospitals participated. The workshops were based on design-thinking research, where ideas were co-created on a multidisciplinary basis to encourage joint problem ownership. Kruskal Wallis and X2 tests were used to analyze data. RESULTS The most prominent barriers mentioned by ROs were patient selection, poor logistics, and logistical worries about the combination of radiation treatment with chemotherapy. Patients pointed out the inefficient coordination between organisations, poor communication, travel issues and discomfort during treatment. Clues to increase referrals revealed the need for additional tools for patient selection and innovative ways to improve logistics. A case manager was identified as beneficial to the patients' journey as part of a multidisciplinary approach. Such an approach should include the active involvement of medical oncologists, surgeons and pulmonologists. CONCLUSION Barriers for access to PT were identified and prioritized in the inter-organisational care- pathway of proton therapy patients in The Netherlands. Innovative solutions were co- designed to solve the barriers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Salina V Thijssen
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Liesbeth J Boersma
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Luca Heising
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Tilburg School of Economics and Management, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands
| | - Rachelle R Swart
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Carol X J Ou
- Tilburg School of Economics and Management, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands
| | - Cheryl Roumen
- Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Maria J G Jacobs
- Tilburg School of Economics and Management, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands; Maastro, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hamming VC, Andersson S, Maduro JH, Langendijk JA, Both S, Sijtsema NM. Daily dose evaluation based on corrected CBCTs for breast cancer patients: accuracy of dose and complication risk assessment. Radiat Oncol 2022; 17:205. [PMID: 36510254 PMCID: PMC9746176 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-022-02174-4] [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: 09/08/2022] [Accepted: 11/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The goal of this study is to validate different CBCT correction methods to select the superior method that can be used for dose evaluation in breast cancer patients with large anatomical changes treated with photon irradiation. MATERIALS AND METHOD Seventy-six breast cancer patients treated with a partial VMAT photon technique (70% conformal, 30% VMAT) were included in this study. All patients showed at least a 5 mm variation (swelling or shrinkage) of the breast on the CBCT compared to the planning-CT (pCT) and had a repeat-CT (rCT) for dose evaluation acquired within 3 days of this CBCT. The original CBCT was corrected using four methods: (1) HU-override correction (CBCTHU), (2) analytical correction and conversion (CBCTCC), (3) deep learning (DL) correction (CTDL) and (4) virtual correction (CTV). Image quality evaluation consisted of calculating the mean absolute error (MAE) and mean error (ME) within the whole breast clinical target volume (CTV) and the field of view of the CBCT minus 2 cm (CBCT-ROI) with respect to the rCT. The dose was calculated on all image sets using the clinical treatment plan for dose and gamma passing rate analysis. RESULTS The MAE of the CBCT-ROI was below 66 HU for all corrected CBCTs, except for the CBCTHU with a MAE of 142 HU. No significant dose differences were observed in the CTV regions in the CBCTCC, CTDL and CTv. Only the CBCTHU deviated significantly (p < 0.01) resulting in 1.7% (± 1.1%) average dose deviation. Gamma passing rates were > 95% for 2%/2 mm for all corrected CBCTs. CONCLUSION The analytical correction and conversion, deep learning correction and virtual correction methods can be applied for an accurate CBCT correction that can be used for dose evaluation during the course of photon radiotherapy of breast cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vincent C. Hamming
- grid.4830.f0000 0004 0407 1981Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - John H. Maduro
- grid.4830.f0000 0004 0407 1981Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes A. Langendijk
- grid.4830.f0000 0004 0407 1981Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Stefan Both
- grid.4830.f0000 0004 0407 1981Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Nanna M. Sijtsema
- grid.4830.f0000 0004 0407 1981Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Choi JI, Prabhu K, Hartsell WF, DeWees T, Sinesi C, Vargas C, Benda RK, Cahlon O, Chang AL. Outcomes and toxicities after proton partial breast radiotherapy for early stage, hormone receptor positive breast cancer: 3-Year results of a phase II multi-center trial. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2022; 37:71-77. [PMID: 36093343 PMCID: PMC9450061 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2022.08.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2022] [Accepted: 08/24/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy is a good treatment option for partial breast irradiation. Proton PBI results in excellent local tumor control and OAR sparing. Cosmesis and quality of life with PBT are comparable to other PBI modalities.
Purpose Proton therapy (PT) for partial breast irradiation (PBI) in early-stage breast cancer can decrease morbidity versus photon PBI with superior organs-at-risk sparing. We report 3-year outcomes of the first prospective, multicenter, phase II trial of proton PBI. Methods and Materials This Proton Collaborative Group phase II trial (PCG BRE007-12) recruited women ≥ 50 years with node-negative, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, ≤3cm, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) or ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing breast conserving surgery followed by proton PBI (40 Gy(RBE), 10 daily fractions). Primary endpoint was freedom from ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence. Adverse events were prospectively graded using CTCAEv4.0. Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) assessed patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL). Results Thirty-eight evaluable patients enrolled between 2/2013–11/2016. Median age was 67 years (range 50–79); 55 % had left-sided disease, and median tumor size was 0.9 cm. Treatment was delivered in ≥ 2 fields predominantly with uniform scanning PT (n = 37). At 35-month median follow-up (12–62), all patients were alive, and none had local, regional or distant disease progression. One patient developed an ER-negative contralateral IDC. Seven grade 2 adverse events occurred; no radiotherapy-related grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred. Changes in BCTOS subdomain mean scores were maximum 0.36, indicating no meaningful change in PRQOL. Median heart volume receiving 5 Gy (V5Gy), lung V20Gy, and lung V10Gy were 0 %, 0 % and 0.19 %, respectively. Conclusion At 3 years, proton PBI provided 100 % cancer control for early-stage, ER-positive breast cancer. Toxicities are minimal, and PRQOL remains acceptable with continued follow-up. These findings support PT as a safe and effective PBI delivery option.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Isabelle Choi
- New York Proton Center, 225 East 126th Street, New York, NY 10035, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA
- Corresponding author at: 225 East 126 Street, New York, NY 10035, USA.
| | - Kiran Prabhu
- Integris Health, 5911 W. Memorial, Oklahoma City, OK 73142, USA
| | - William F. Hartsell
- Northwestern Medicine, Chicago Proton Center, 4455 Weaver Pkwy, Warrenville, IL 60555, USA
| | - Todd DeWees
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA
| | - Christopher Sinesi
- Hampton University Proton Therapy Institute, 40 Enterprise Pkwy, Hampton, VA 23666, USA
| | - Carlos Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Rashmi K. Benda
- Lynn Cancer Institute, Boca Raton Regional Hospital, 701 NW 13 St, Boca Raton, FL 33486, USA
| | - Oren Cahlon
- New York Proton Center, 225 East 126th Street, New York, NY 10035, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Andrew L. Chang
- California Protons Cancer Therapy Center, 9730 Summers Ridge Rd, San Diego, CA 92121, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Artificial Intelligence for Outcome Modeling in Radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2022; 32:351-364. [DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2022.06.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
|
10
|
Mohan R. A review of proton therapy – Current status and future directions. PRECISION RADIATION ONCOLOGY 2022; 6:164-176. [DOI: 10.1002/pro6.1149] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Radhe Mohan
- Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Pham TT, Whelan B, Oborn BM, Delaney GP, Vinod S, Brighi C, Barton M, Keall P. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guided proton therapy: A review of the clinical challenges, potential benefits and pathway to implementation. Radiother Oncol 2022; 170:37-47. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.02.031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2021] [Revised: 02/09/2022] [Accepted: 02/25/2022] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
12
|
Polomski EAS, Antoni ML, Jukema JW, Kroep JR, Dibbets-Schneider P, Sattler MGA, de Geus-Oei LF. Nuclear medicine imaging methods of radiation-induced cardiotoxicity. Semin Nucl Med 2022; 52:597-610. [PMID: 35246310 DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2022.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2022] [Accepted: 02/06/2022] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Breast cancer survival is significantly improved over the past decades due to major improvements in anti-tumor therapies and the implementation of regular screening, which leads to early detection of breast cancer. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to prevent patients from long-term side effects, including radiotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. Radiotherapy may contribute to damage of myocardial structures on the cellular level, which eventually could result in various types of cardiovascular problems, including coronary artery disease and (non-)ischemic cardiomyopathy, leading to heart failure. These cardiac complications of radiotherapy are preceded by alterations in myocardial perfusion and blood flow. Therefore, early detection of these alterations is important to prevent the progression of these pathophysiological processes. Several radionuclide imaging techniques may contribute to the early detection of these changes. Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) cameras can be used to create Multigated Acquisition scans in order to assess the left ventricular systolic and diastolic function. Furthermore, SPECT cameras are used for myocardial perfusion imaging with radiopharmaceuticals such as 99mTc-sestamibi and 99mTc-tetrofosmin. Accurate quantitative measurement of myocardial blood flow (MBF), can be performed by Positron Emission Tomography (PET), as the uptake of some of the tracers used for PET-based MBF measurement almost creates a linear relationship with MBF, resulting in very accurate blood flow quantification. Furthermore, there are PET and SPECT tracers that can assess inflammation and denervation of the cardiac sympathetic nervous system. Research over the past decades has mainly focused on the long-term development of left ventricular impairment and perfusion defects. Considering laterality of the breast cancer, some early studies have shown that women irradiated for left-sided breast cancer are more prone to cardiotoxic side effects than women irradiated for right-sided breast cancer. The left-sided radiation field in these trials, which predominantly used older radiotherapy techniques without heart-sparing techniques, included a larger volume of the heart and left ventricle, leading to increased unavoidable radiation exposure to the heart due to the close proximity of the radiation treatment volume. Although radiotherapy for breast cancer exposes the heart to incidental radiation, several improvements and technical developments over the last decades resulted in continuous reduction of radiation dose and volume exposure to the heart. In addition, radiotherapy reduces loco-regional tumor recurrences and death from breast cancer and improves survival. Therefore, in the majority of patients, the benefits of radiotherapy outweigh the potential very low risk of cardiovascular adverse events after radiotherapy. This review addresses existing nuclear imaging techniques, which can be used to evaluate (long-term) effects of radiotherapy-induced mechanical cardiac dysfunction and discusses the potential use of more novel nuclear imaging techniques, which are promising in the assessment of early signs of cardiac dysfunction in selected irradiated breast cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Maria Louisa Antoni
- Department of Cardiology, Heart and Lung Centre, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Johan Wouter Jukema
- Department of Cardiology, Heart and Lung Centre, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Judith Rian Kroep
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Petra Dibbets-Schneider
- Department of Radiology, section Nuclear Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Margriet G A Sattler
- Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei
- Department of Radiology, section Nuclear Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Biomedical Photonic Imaging Group, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|