1
|
Vasudevan SS, Deeb H, Katta A, Olinde L, Pang J, Asarkar AA, Katz S, Nathan CAO. Efficacy and safety of proton therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of head and neck tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck 2024; 46:2616-2631. [PMID: 39007360 DOI: 10.1002/hed.27877] [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: 05/13/2024] [Revised: 06/19/2024] [Accepted: 07/07/2024] [Indexed: 07/16/2024] Open
Abstract
To comprehensively evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and safety when utilizing proton therapy (PT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in head and neck cancer patients. Pubmed, ScienceDirect, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies on comparative PT and IMRT outcomes. We performed a random effect model meta-analysis to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) for efficacy and safety outcome variables between PT and IMRT. From 641 identified articles, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 3087 patients (606 treated with PT and 2481 with IMRT). On toxicity analysis, PT is associated with decreased acute grade 1 nausea (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13-0.84, p = 0.02) compared to IMRT. In grade 2 toxicity, PT showed significant advantages over IMRT in mucositis (OR = 0.44, p < 0.0001), dysgeusia (OR = 0.35, p = 0.02), dysphagia (OR = 0.36, p < 0.0001), fatigue (OR = 0.29, p = 0.001), pain (OR = 0.34, p = 0.01), and weight loss (OR = 0.54, p = 0.02). Proton therapy also exhibited increased safety in grade 3 dysphagia incidence (OR = 0.44, p < 0.0001) compared to IMRT. PT demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) compared to IMRT across multiple time points: 1-year OS (HR = 0.43, p = 0.02), 2-year OS (HR = 0.44, p < 0.0001), and 5-year OS (HR = 0.78, p = 0.004). In terms of disease-free survival (DFS), PT also showed improved outcomes at 2-year DFS (HR = 0.65, p = 0.03) and 5-year DFS (HR = 0.81, p = 0.03). Proton therapy demonstrated superior overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and better local control rate (LCR) compared to IMRT. The data also showed better safety outcomes in PT patients, particularly when involving grade 2 acute toxicity events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Srivatsa Surya Vasudevan
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
| | - Haya Deeb
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria
| | - Anuhya Katta
- Department of Academics, Jonelta Foundation School of Medicine, University of Perpetual Help System Dalta, Las Piñas, Philippines
| | - Lindsay Olinde
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
| | - John Pang
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
| | - Ameya A Asarkar
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
| | - Sanford Katz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Willis-Knighton Cancer Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
| | - Cherie-Ann O Nathan
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
- Department of Surgery, Overton Brooks Veterans Administration Medical Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sami M, Yousuf M, Hashmi Q, Ahmad M, Ghilman M, Shareef H. Proton Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancers. Cureus 2024; 16:e70752. [PMID: 39493189 PMCID: PMC11531088 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.70752] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/03/2024] [Indexed: 11/05/2024] Open
Abstract
Head and neck (HnN) cancers are among the most common cancers in the world. Proton therapy (PT) is one of the latest advancements in the treatment modalities of cancers. Proton therapy is specifically used to treat HnN cancer patients due to its less toxic effects on the surrounding critical structures. Keeping in view the opportunities for further advancements, there is a lot of literature covering PT in HnN cancer patients. However, few compiled studies are not enough to compare the toxicities, overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and quality of life (QoL) of PT with that of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The objective of this review is to compile and summarize the literature available on the toxicities, OS, LC, and QoL in HnN cancer patients post PT. We have gathered and summarized the literature found under the keyword "proton therapy for head and neck cancers". Proton therapy is a preferable option over IMRT because it isolates tumors of the HnN, reduces exposure of healthy cells to radiation, and allows accurate tumor scanning using the pencil beam technique. In view of this article, we can say that PT is a preferable mode of radiotherapy for HnN cancer patients in view of its accuracy and lower incidents of acute and late toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Qasim Hashmi
- Otolaryngology, Ruth K. M. Pfau, Civil Hospital Karachi, Karachi, PAK
| | | | - Mohammad Ghilman
- Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Civil Hospital Karachi, Karachi, PAK
| | - Huzaifa Shareef
- Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Civil Hospital Karachi, Karachi, PAK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Nowicka-Matus K, Friborg J, Hansen C, Bernsdorf M, Elstrøm U, Farhadi M, Grau C, Eriksen J, Johansen J, Nielsen M, Holm A, Samsøe E, Sibolt P, Smulders B, Jensen K. Acute toxicities in proton therapy for head and neck cancer - A matched analysis of the DAHANCA 35 feasibility study. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 48:100835. [PMID: 39189000 PMCID: PMC11345689 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100835] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2024] [Revised: 07/30/2024] [Accepted: 07/30/2024] [Indexed: 08/28/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K. Nowicka-Matus
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - J. Friborg
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Rigshospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - C.R. Hansen
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - M. Bernsdorf
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Rigshospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - U.V. Elstrøm
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - M. Farhadi
- Dept of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital, Naestved, Denmark
| | - C. Grau
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - J.G. Eriksen
- Dept of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - J. Johansen
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - M.S. Nielsen
- Dept of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - A. Holm
- Dept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - E. Samsøe
- Dept of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital, Naestved, Denmark
| | - P. Sibolt
- Dept of Oncology, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
| | - B. Smulders
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Rigshospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - K. Jensen
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Yang D, Zhu XR, Chen M, Ma L, Cheng X, Grosshans DR, Lu W, Shao Y. Investigation of intra-fractionated range guided adaptive proton therapy: I. On-line PET imaging and range measurement. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:155005. [PMID: 38861997 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad56f4] [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: 02/29/2024] [Accepted: 06/11/2024] [Indexed: 06/13/2024]
Abstract
Objective.Develop a prototype on-line positron emission tomography (PET) scanner and evaluate its capability of on-line imaging and intra-fractionated proton-induced radioactivity range measurement.Approach.Each detector consists of 32 × 32 array of 2 × 2 × 30 mm3Lutetium-Yttrium Oxyorthosilicate scintillators with single-scintillator-end readout through a 20 × 20 array of 3 × 3 mm2Silicon Photomultipliers. The PET can be configurated with a full-ring of 20 detectors for conventional PET imaging or a partial-ring of 18 detectors for on-line imaging and range measurement. All detector-level readout and processing electronics are attached to the backside of the system gantry and their output signals are transferred to a field-programable-gate-array based system electronics and data acquisition that can be placed 2 m away from the gantry. The PET imaging performance and radioactivity range measurement capability were evaluated by both the offline study that placed a radioactive source with known intensity and distribution within a phantom and the online study that irradiated a phantom with proton beams under different radiation and imaging conditions.Main results.The PET has 32 cm diameter and 6.5 cm axial length field-of-view (FOV), ∼2.3-5.0 mm spatial resolution within FOV, 3% sensitivity at the FOV center, 18%-30% energy resolution, and ∼9 ns coincidence time resolution. The offline study shows the PET can determine the shift of distal falloff edge position of a known radioactivity distribution with the accuracy of 0.3 ± 0.3 mm even without attenuation and scatter corrections, and online study shows the PET can measure the shift of proton-induced positron radioactive range with the accuracy of 0.6 ± 0.3 mm from the data acquired with a short-acquisition (60 s) and low-dose (5 MU) proton radiation to a human head phantom.Significance.This study demonstrated the capability of intra-fractionated PET imaging and radioactivity range measurement and will enable the investigation on the feasibility of intra-fractionated, range-shift compensated adaptive proton therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dongxu Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75057, United States of America
| | - Xiaorong R Zhu
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77000, United States of America
| | - Mingli Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75057, United States of America
| | - Lin Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75057, United States of America
| | - Xinyi Cheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75057, United States of America
| | - David R Grosshans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77000, United States of America
| | - Weiguo Lu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75057, United States of America
| | - Yiping Shao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75057, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Stolen E, Fullarton R, Hein R, Conner RL, Jacobsohn LG, Collins-Fekete CA, Beddar S, Akgun U, Robertson D. High-Density Glass Scintillators for Proton Radiography-Relative Luminosity, Proton Response, and Spatial Resolution. SENSORS (BASEL, SWITZERLAND) 2024; 24:2137. [PMID: 38610351 PMCID: PMC11014246 DOI: 10.3390/s24072137] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2024] [Revised: 03/19/2024] [Accepted: 03/19/2024] [Indexed: 04/14/2024]
Abstract
Proton radiography is a promising development in proton therapy, and researchers are currently exploring optimal detector materials to construct proton radiography detector arrays. High-density glass scintillators may improve integrating-mode proton radiography detectors by increasing spatial resolution and decreasing detector thickness. We evaluated several new scintillators, activated with europium or terbium, with proton response measurements and Monte Carlo simulations, characterizing relative luminosity, ionization quenching, and proton radiograph spatial resolution. We applied a correction based on Birks's analytical model for ionization quenching. The data demonstrate increased relative luminosity with increased activation element concentration, and higher relative luminosity for samples activated with europium. An increased glass density enables more compact detector geometries and higher spatial resolution. These findings suggest that a tungsten and gadolinium oxide-based glass activated with 4% europium is an ideal scintillator for testing in a full-size proton radiography detector.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ethan Stolen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA;
| | - Ryan Fullarton
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (R.F.); (C.-A.C.-F.)
| | - Rain Hein
- Department of Physics, Coe College, Cedar Rapids, IA 52402, USA; (R.H.); (U.A.)
| | - Robin L. Conner
- Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA; (R.L.C.); (L.G.J.)
| | - Luiz G. Jacobsohn
- Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA; (R.L.C.); (L.G.J.)
| | - Charles-Antoine Collins-Fekete
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (R.F.); (C.-A.C.-F.)
| | - Sam Beddar
- Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - Ugur Akgun
- Department of Physics, Coe College, Cedar Rapids, IA 52402, USA; (R.H.); (U.A.)
| | - Daniel Robertson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA;
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Mendenhall WM, Beitler JJ, Saba NF, Shaha AR, Nuyts S, Strojan P, Bollen H, Cohen O, Smee R, Ng SP, Eisbruch A, Ng WT, Kirwan JM, Ferlito A. Proton Beam Radiation Therapy for Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Int J Part Ther 2023; 9:243-252. [PMID: 37169005 PMCID: PMC10166016 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-22-00030.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2022] [Accepted: 03/10/2023] [Indexed: 05/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose To discuss the role of proton beam therapy (PBT) in the treatment of patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Materials and Methods A review of the pertinent literature. Results Proton beam therapy likely results in reduced acute and late toxicity as compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The extent of the reduced toxicity, which may be modest, depends on the endpoint and technical factors such as pencil beam versus passive scattered PBT and adaptive replanning. The disease control rates after PBT are likely similar to those after IMRT. Conclusion Proton beam therapy is an attractive option to treat patients with OPSCC. Whether it becomes widely available depends on access.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William M. Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Jonathan J. Beitler
- Harold Alfonds Center for Cancer Care, Maine General Hospital, Augusta, ME, USA
| | - Nabil F. Saba
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Ashok R. Shaha
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sandra Nuyts
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Primož Strojan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Heleen Bollen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Oded Cohen
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Soroka Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Affiliated with Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
| | - Robert Smee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Prince of Wales Cancer Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Sweet Ping Ng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Centre, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Avraham Eisbruch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Wai Tong Ng
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Jessica M. Kirwan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Alfio Ferlito
- Coordinator of the International Head and Neck Scientific Group, Padua, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Svajdova M, Dubinsky P, Kazda T, Jeremic B. Human Papillomavirus-Related Non-Metastatic Oropharyngeal Carcinoma: Current Local Treatment Options and Future Perspectives. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:5385. [PMID: 36358801 PMCID: PMC9658535 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14215385] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2022] [Revised: 10/26/2022] [Accepted: 10/31/2022] [Indexed: 08/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Over the last two decades, human papillomavirus (HPV) has caused a new pandemic of cancer in many urban areas across the world. The new entity, HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), has been at the center of scientific attention ever since, not only due to its distinct biological behavior, but also because of its significantly better prognosis than observed in its HPV-negative counterpart. The very good treatment outcomes of the disease after primary therapy (minimally-invasive surgery, radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy) resulted in the creation of a separate staging system, reflecting this excellent prognosis. A substantial proportion of newly diagnosed HPV-driven OPSCC is diagnosed in stage I or II, where long-term survival is observed worldwide. Deintensification of the primary therapeutic methods, aiming at a reduction of long-term toxicity in survivors, has emerged, and the quality of life of the patient after treatment has become a key-point in many clinical trials. Current treatment recommendations for the treatment of HPV-driven OPSCC do not differ significantly from HPV-negative OPSCC; however, the results of randomized trials are eagerly awaited and deemed necessary, in order to include deintensification into standard clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michaela Svajdova
- Department of Radiation and Clinical Oncology, General Hospital Rimavska Sobota, 979 01 Rimavska Sobota, Slovakia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Pavol Dubinsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, East Slovakia Oncology Institute, 040 01 Kosice, Slovakia
- Faculty of Health, Catholic University Ruzomberok, 034 01 Ruzomberok, Slovakia
| | - Tomas Kazda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Branislav Jeremic
- School of Medicine, University of Kragujevac, 340 00 Kragujevac, Serbia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Nuyts S, Bollen H, Ng SP, Corry J, Eisbruch A, Mendenhall WM, Smee R, Strojan P, Ng WT, Ferlito A. Proton Therapy for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: Early Clinical Experience and Current Challenges. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14112587. [PMID: 35681568 PMCID: PMC9179360 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14112587] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2022] [Revised: 05/18/2022] [Accepted: 05/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Proton therapy is a promising type of radiation therapy used to destroy tumor cells. It has the potential to further improve the outcomes for patients with head and neck cancer since it allows to minimize the radiation dose to vital structures around the tumor, leading to less toxicity. This paper describes the current experience worldwide with proton therapy in head and neck cancer. Abstract Proton therapy (PT) is a promising development in radiation oncology, with the potential to further improve outcomes for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC). By utilizing the finite range of protons, healthy tissue can be spared from beam exit doses that would otherwise be irradiated with photon-based treatments. Current evidence on PT for HNSCC is limited to comparative dosimetric analyses and retrospective single-institution series. As a consequence, the recognized indications for the reimbursement of PT remain scarce in most countries. Nevertheless, approximately 100 PT centers are in operation worldwide, and initial experiences for HNSCC are being reported. This review aims to summarize the results of the early clinical experience with PT for HNSCC and the challenges that are currently faced.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandra Nuyts
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
- Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Correspondence:
| | - Heleen Bollen
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
- Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Sweet Ping Ng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia;
| | - June Corry
- Division of Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia;
| | - Avraham Eisbruch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA;
| | - William M Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32209, USA;
| | - Robert Smee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Prince of Wales Cancer Centre, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia;
| | - Primoz Strojan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia;
| | - Wai Tong Ng
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China;
| | - Alfio Ferlito
- Coordinator of the International Head and Neck Scientific Group, 35125 Padua, Italy;
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Mohamed N, Lee A, Lee NY. Proton beam radiation therapy treatment for head and neck cancer. PRECISION RADIATION ONCOLOGY 2021. [DOI: 10.1002/pro6.1135] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Nader Mohamed
- Department of Radiation Oncology Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York NY USA
| | - Anna Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston TX USA
| | - Nancy Y. Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York NY USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Gordon KB, Smyk DI, Gulidov IA. Proton Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer Treatment: State of the Problem and Development Prospects (Review). Sovrem Tekhnologii Med 2021; 13:70-80. [PMID: 34603766 PMCID: PMC8482826 DOI: 10.17691/stm2021.13.4.08] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy (PT) due to dosimetric characteristics (Bragg peak formation, sharp dose slowdown) is currently one of the most high-tech techniques of radiation therapy exceeding the standards of photon methods. In recent decades, PT has traditionally been used, primarily, for head and neck cancers (HNC) including skull base tumors. Regardless of the fact that recently PT application area has significantly expanded, HNC still remain a leading indication for proton radiation since PT’s physic-dosimetric and radiobiological advantages enable to achieve the best treatment results in these tumors. The present review is devoted to PT usage in HNC treatment in the world and Russian medicine, the prospects for further technique development, the assessment of PT’s radiobiological features, a physical and dosimetric comparison of protons photons distribution. The paper shows PT’s capabilities in the treatment of skull base tumors, HNC (nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses, nasopharynx, oropharynx, and laryngopharynx, etc.), eye tumors, sialomas. The authors analyze the studies on repeated radiation and provide recent experimental data on favorable profile of proton radiation compared to the conventional radiation therapy. The review enables to conclude that currently PT is a dynamic radiation technique opening up new opportunities for improving therapy of oncology patients, especially those with HNC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K B Gordon
- Senior Researcher, Proton Therapy Department; A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Centre - Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Centre of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 4 Koroleva St., Kaluga Region, Obninsk, 249036, Russia
| | - D I Smyk
- Junior Researcher, Proton Therapy Department; A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Centre - Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Centre of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 4 Koroleva St., Kaluga Region, Obninsk, 249036, Russia
| | - I A Gulidov
- Professor, Head of the Proton Therapy Department; A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Centre - Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Centre of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 4 Koroleva St., Kaluga Region, Obninsk, 249036, Russia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Proton Therapy for HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancers of the Head and Neck: a De-Intensification Strategy. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2021; 22:54. [PMID: 34086150 PMCID: PMC8178129 DOI: 10.1007/s11864-021-00847-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
Abstract
The rise in the incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC), the relatively young age at which it is diagnosed, and its favorable prognosis necessitate the use of treatment techniques that reduce the likelihood of side effects during and after curative treatment. Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is a form of radiotherapy that de-intensifies treatment through dose de-escalation to normal tissues without compromising dose to the primary tumor and involved, regional lymph nodes. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that HPV-positive squamous cell carcinoma is more sensitive to proton radiation than is HPV-negative squamous cell carcinoma. Retrospective studies comparing intensity-modulated photon (X-ray) radiotherapy to IMPT for OPC suggest comparable rates of disease control and lower rates of pain, xerostomia, dysphagia, dysgeusia, gastrostomy tube dependence, and osteoradionecrosis with IMPT—all of which meaningfully affect the quality of life of patients treated for HPV-associated OPC. Two phase III trials currently underway—the “Randomized Trial of IMPT versus IMRT for the Treatment of Oropharyngeal Cancer of the Head and Neck” and the “TOxicity Reduction using Proton bEam therapy for Oropharyngeal cancer (TORPEdO)” trial—are expected to provide prospective, level I evidence regarding the effectiveness of IMPT for such patients.
Collapse
|
12
|
Zhong Y, Lu W, Chen M, Xiong Z, Cheng X, Hu K, Shao Y. Novel On-line PET Imaging for Intra-Beam Range Verification and Delivery Optimization: A Simulation Feasibility Study. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON RADIATION AND PLASMA MEDICAL SCIENCES 2021; 4:212-217. [PMID: 33778233 DOI: 10.1109/trpms.2019.2950231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
On-line PET image-based method uses an initial particle beam to measure the particle beam range (BR) within the same fraction so that any measured range-shift with respect to the predicted BR can be compensated before the rest therapeutic beam deliveries. However, the method requires to use a low-dose initial beam to minimize the risk of beam overshooting, which leads to low image count and inaccurate BR measurement. In this in-silico study, we evaluated the feasibility of a new on-line PET imaging method that measures BR at the mid-plane of a target volume with part of the high-dose therapy beams to verify BR and guide adaptive treatment re-planning. Simulations included various processes of proton beam radiations to a tumor inside a human brain phantom, positron and PET image generation at the mid-plane with initial beams, activity range measurement, and range-shift compensated beam delivery. The results demonstrated that the new method, under the simulated conditions, can achieve ~1.1 mm mid-plane BR measurement accuracy and closely match the delivered range-shift compensated dose distribution with the planned one. Overall, it is promising that this new method may significantly improve particle therapy accuracy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuncheng Zhong
- Division of Medical Physics and Engineering Department of Radiation Oncology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, Texas 75390 USA
| | - Weiguo Lu
- Division of Medical Physics and Engineering Department of Radiation Oncology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, Texas 75390 USA
| | - Mingli Chen
- Division of Medical Physics and Engineering Department of Radiation Oncology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, Texas 75390 USA
| | - Zhenyu Xiong
- Division of Medical Physics and Engineering Department of Radiation Oncology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, Texas 75390 USA
| | - Xinyi Cheng
- Division of Medical Physics and Engineering Department of Radiation Oncology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, Texas 75390 USA
| | - Kun Hu
- Division of Medical Physics and Engineering Department of Radiation Oncology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, Texas 75390 USA
| | - Yiping Shao
- Division of Medical Physics and Engineering Department of Radiation Oncology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, Texas 75390 USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Shaikh F, Sodhi SK, Kale LM, Talib YA, Saleem HM. Implementation of meta-analysis approach, comparing conventional radiotherapy, and proton beam therapy treating head and neck cancer. J Cancer Res Ther 2020; 16:594-599. [PMID: 32719273 DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_111_19] [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: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
Introduction Radiation therapy is commonly used in the treatment of head and neck cancer in both the definitive and postoperative settings. Proton therapy, due to its intrinsic physical properties, has the ability to reduce the integral dose delivered to the patients while maintaining highly conformal target coverage. Materials and Methods .A literature search was performed on scientific databases, and Preferred Reporting Items for Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed to compute results. Only original studies were selected. Selected studies were used to extract some proposed data for comparison, dosimetry, site, complications, and survival. Results Proton beam therapy technology can be used against the conventional radiotherapy and shows satisfactory results. Yet conventional therapy is not less advantageous considering the amount of work available for any cross interpretations. Conclusion Comparative preplanning could be beneficial considering multiple therapies for ruling out the best treatment outcomes that could be expected.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Firdous Shaikh
- Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, CSMSS Dental College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
| | - Sonia Kaur Sodhi
- Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, CSMSS Dental College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
| | - Lata M Kale
- Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, CSMSS Dental College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
| | - Yusuf A Talib
- Department of Biotechnology, Dr. Rafiq Zakaria Campus, Maulana Azad College, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
| | - Huma Md Saleem
- Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, CSMSS Dental College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Proton therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: A review of the physical and clinical challenges. Radiother Oncol 2020; 147:30-39. [PMID: 32224315 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.03.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2019] [Revised: 02/21/2020] [Accepted: 03/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
The quality of radiation therapy has been shown to significantly influence the outcomes for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients. The results of dosimetric studies suggest that intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) could be of added value for HNSCC by being more effective than intensity-modulated (photon) radiation therapy (IMRT) for reducing side effects of radiation therapy. However, the physical properties of protons make IMPT more sensitive than photons to planning uncertainties. This could potentially have a negative effect on the quality of IMPT planning and delivery. For this review, the three French proton therapy centers collaborated to evaluate the differences between IMRT and IMPT. The review explored the effects of these uncertainties and their management for developing a robust and optimized IMPT treatment delivery plan to achieve clinical outcomes that are superior to those for IMRT. We also provide practical suggestions for the management of HNSCC carcinoma with IMPT. Because metallic dental implants can increase range uncertainties (3-10%), patient preparation for IMPT may require more systematic removal of in-field alien material than is done for IMRT. Multi-energy CT may be an alternative to calculate more accurately the dose distribution. The practical aspects that we describe are essential to guarantee optimal quality in radiation therapy in both model-based and randomized clinical trials.
Collapse
|
15
|
Aljabab S, Liu A, Wong T, Liao JJ, Laramore GE, Parvathaneni U. Proton Therapy for Locally Advanced Oropharyngeal Cancer: Initial Clinical Experience at the University of Washington. Int J Part Ther 2019; 6:1-12. [PMID: 32582809 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-19-00053.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2019] [Accepted: 10/26/2019] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Proton therapy can potentially improve the therapeutic ratio over conventional radiation therapy for oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (OPSCC) by decreasing acute and late toxicity. We report our early clinical experience with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Materials and Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients with OPSCC treated with IMPT at our center. Endpoints include local regional control (LRC), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and toxicity outcomes. Toxicity was graded as per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier method were used. Results We treated 46 patients from March 2015 to August 2017. Median age was 58 years, 93.5% were male, 67% were nonsmokers, 98% had stage III-IVB disease per the 7th edition of the AJCC [American Joint Committee on Cancer] Cancer Staging Manual, and 89% were p16 positive. Twenty-eight patients received definitive IMPT to total dose of 70 to 74.4 Gy(RBE), and 18 patients received postoperative IMPT to 60 to 66 Gy(RBE) following transoral robotic surgery (TORS). Sixty-four percent of patients received concurrent systemic therapy. There were no treatment interruptions or observed acute grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Eighteen patients had percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement; the majority (14) were placed prophylactically. The most common grade 3 acute toxicities were dermatitis (76%) and mucositis (72%). The most common late toxicity was grade 2 xerostomia (30%). At a median follow-up time of 19.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 11.2-28.4), primary complete response was 100% and nodal complete response was 92%. One patient required a salvage neck dissection owing to an incomplete response at 4 months. There were no recorded local regional or marginal recurrences, PFS was 93.5%, and OS was 95.7%. Conclusion Our early results for IMPT in OPSCC are promising with no local regional or marginal recurrences and a favorable toxicity profile. Our data add to a body of evidence that supports the clinical use of IMPT. Randomized comparative trials are encouraged.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saif Aljabab
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Andrew Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Tony Wong
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Jay J Liao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - George E Laramore
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Upendra Parvathaneni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Beddok A, Vela A, Calugaru V, Tessonnier T, Kubes J, Dutheil P, Gérard A, Vidal M, Goudjil F, Florescu C, Kammerer E, Bénézery K, Hérault J, Bourhis J, Thariat J. [Proton therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: From physics to clinic]. Cancer Radiother 2019; 23:439-448. [PMID: 31358445 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2019.05.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2019] [Revised: 05/09/2019] [Accepted: 05/16/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is presently the recommended technique for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck carcinomas. Proton therapy would allow to reduce the volume of irradiated normal tissue and, thus, to decrease the risk of late dysphagia, xerostomia, dysgeusia and hypothyroidism. An exhaustive research was performed with the search engine PubMed by focusing on the papers about the physical difficulties that slow down use of proton therapy for head and neck carcinomas. Range uncertainties in proton therapy (±3 %) paradoxically limit the use of the steep dose gradient in distality. Calibration uncertainties can be important in the treatment of head and neck cancer in the presence of materials of uncertain stoichiometric composition (such as with metal implants, dental filling, etc.) and complex heterogeneities. Dental management for example may be different with IMRT or proton therapy. Some uncertainties can be somewhat minimized at the time of optimization. Inter- and intrafractional variations and uncertainties in Hounsfield units/stopping power can be integrated in a robust optimization process. Additional changes in patient's anatomy (tumour shrinkage, changes in skin folds in the beam patch, large weight loss or gain) require rescanning. Dosimetric and small clinical studies comparing photon and proton therapy have well shown the interest of proton therapy for head and neck cancers. Intensity-modulated proton therapy is a promising treatment as it can reduce the substantial toxicity burden of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma compared to IMRT. Robust optimization will allow to perform an optimal treatment and to use proton therapy in current clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Beddok
- Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, institut Curie, 25, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| | - A Vela
- Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, centre François-Baclesse, Caen, 3, avenue du Général-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Unicaen - Normandie Université, 14000 Caen, France; Advanced Resource Centre for Hadrontherapy in Europe (Archade), 3, avenue du Général-Harris, 14000 Caen, France
| | - V Calugaru
- Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, institut Curie, 25, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| | - T Tessonnier
- Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, centre François-Baclesse, Caen, 3, avenue du Général-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Unicaen - Normandie Université, 14000 Caen, France; Advanced Resource Centre for Hadrontherapy in Europe (Archade), 3, avenue du Général-Harris, 14000 Caen, France
| | - J Kubes
- Proton Therapy Centre Czech, Prague, République tchèque
| | - P Dutheil
- Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, centre François-Baclesse, Caen, 3, avenue du Général-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Unicaen - Normandie Université, 14000 Caen, France; Advanced Resource Centre for Hadrontherapy in Europe (Archade), 3, avenue du Général-Harris, 14000 Caen, France
| | - A Gérard
- Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, 33, avenue Valombrose, 06000 Nice, France
| | - M Vidal
- Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, 33, avenue Valombrose, 06000 Nice, France
| | - F Goudjil
- Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, institut Curie, 25, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| | - C Florescu
- Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, centre François-Baclesse, Caen, 3, avenue du Général-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Unicaen - Normandie Université, 14000 Caen, France; Advanced Resource Centre for Hadrontherapy in Europe (Archade), 3, avenue du Général-Harris, 14000 Caen, France
| | - E Kammerer
- Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, centre François-Baclesse, Caen, 3, avenue du Général-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Unicaen - Normandie Université, 14000 Caen, France; Advanced Resource Centre for Hadrontherapy in Europe (Archade), 3, avenue du Général-Harris, 14000 Caen, France
| | - K Bénézery
- Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, 33, avenue Valombrose, 06000 Nice, France
| | - J Hérault
- Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, 33, avenue Valombrose, 06000 Nice, France
| | - J Bourhis
- Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois, Lausanne, Suisse
| | - J Thariat
- Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, centre François-Baclesse, Caen, 3, avenue du Général-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Unicaen - Normandie Université, 14000 Caen, France; Advanced Resource Centre for Hadrontherapy in Europe (Archade), 3, avenue du Général-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Laboratoire de physique corpusculaire IN2P3/Ensicaen - UMR6534, Unicaen - Normandie Université, 14000 Caen, France.
| | -
- Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, institut Curie, 25, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France; Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, centre François-Baclesse, Caen, 3, avenue du Général-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Unicaen - Normandie Université, 14000 Caen, France; Proton Therapy Centre Czech, Prague, République tchèque; Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, 33, avenue Valombrose, 06000 Nice, France; Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois, Lausanne, Suisse; Laboratoire de physique corpusculaire IN2P3/Ensicaen - UMR6534, Unicaen - Normandie Université, 14000 Caen, France
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Alterio D, Marvaso G, Ferrari A, Volpe S, Orecchia R, Jereczek-Fossa BA. Modern radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Semin Oncol 2019; 46:233-245. [PMID: 31378376 DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2019.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 154] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2019] [Accepted: 07/15/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Radiation therapy (RT) plays a key role in curative-intent treatments for head and neck cancers. Its use is indicated as a sole therapy in early stage tumors or in combination with surgery or concurrent chemotherapy in advanced stages. Recent technologic advances have resulted in both improved oncologic results and expansion of the indications for RT in clinical practice. Despite this, RT administered to the head and neck region is still burdened by a high rate of acute and late side effects. Moreover, about 50% of patients with high-risk disease experience loco-regional recurrence within 3 years of follow-up. Therefore, in recent decades, efforts have been dedicated to optimize the cost/benefit ratio of RT in this subset of patients. The aim of the present review was to highlight modern concepts of RT for head and neck cancers considering both the technological advances that have been achieved and recent knowledge that has informed the biological interaction between radiation and both tumor and healthy tissues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniela Alterio
- Division of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Giulia Marvaso
- Division of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
| | - Annamaria Ferrari
- Division of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefania Volpe
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
- Division of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Park SG, Ahn YC, Oh D, Noh JM, Ju SG, Kwon D, Jo K, Chung K, Chung E, Lee W, Park S. Early clinical outcomes of helical tomotherapy/intensity-modulated proton therapy combination in nasopharynx cancer. Cancer Sci 2019; 110:2867-2874. [PMID: 31237050 PMCID: PMC6726680 DOI: 10.1111/cas.14115] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2019] [Revised: 06/17/2019] [Accepted: 06/22/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of combining helical tomotherapy (HT) and intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in treating patients with nasopharynx cancer (NPC). From January 2016 to March 2018, 98 patients received definitive radiation therapy (RT) with concurrent chemotherapy (CCRT). Using simultaneous integrated boost and adaptive re‐plan, 3 different dose levels were prescribed: 68.4 Gy in 30 parts to gross tumor volume (GTV), 60 Gy in 30 parts to high‐risk clinical target volume (CTV), and 36 Gy in 18 parts to low‐risk CTV. In all patients, the initial 18 fractions were delivered by HT, and, after rival plan evaluation on the adaptive re‐plan, the later 12 fractions were delivered either by HT in 63 patients (64.3%, HT only) or IMPT in 35 patients (35.7%, HT/IMPT combination), respectively. Propensity‐score matching was conducted to control differences in patient characteristics. In all patients, grade ≥ 2 mucositis (69.8% vs 45.7%, P = .019) and grade ≥ 2 analgesic usage (54% vs 37.1%, P = .110) were found to be less frequent in HT/IMPT group. In matched patients, grade ≥ 2 mucositis were still less frequent numerically in HT/IMPT group (62.9% vs 45.7%, P = .150). In univariate analysis, stage IV disease and larger GTV volume were associated with increased grade ≥ 2 mucositis. There was no significant factor in multivariate analysis. With the median 14 month follow‐up, locoregional and distant failures occurred in 9 (9.2%) and 12 (12.2%) patients without difference by RT modality. In conclusion, comparable early oncologic outcomes with more favorable acute toxicity profiles were achievable by HT/IMPT combination in treating NPC patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seung Gyu Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
| | - Yong Chan Ahn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dongryul Oh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae Myoung Noh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sang Gyu Ju
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dongyeol Kwon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kwanghyun Jo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kwangzoo Chung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Eunah Chung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Woojin Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seyjoon Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) - The future of IMRT for head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol 2018; 88:66-74. [PMID: 30616799 DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.11.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 93] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2018] [Revised: 11/11/2018] [Accepted: 11/12/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy plays an integral role in the management of head and neck cancers (HNCs). While most HNC patients have historically been treated with photon-based radiation techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), there is a growing awareness of the potential clinical benefits of proton therapy over IMRT in the definitive, postoperative and reirradiation settings given the unique physical properties of protons. Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), also known as "pencil beam proton therapy," is a sophisticated mode of proton therapy that is analogous to IMRT and an active area of investigation in cancer care. Multifield optimization IMPT allows for high quality plans that can target superficially located HNCs as well as large neck volumes while significantly reducing integral doses. Several dosimetric studies have demonstrated the superiority of IMPT over IMRT to improve dose sparing of nearby organs such as the larynx, salivary glands, and esophagus. Evidence of the clinical translation of these dosimetric advantages has been demonstrated with documented toxicity reductions (such as decreased feeding tube dependency) after IMPT for patients with HNCs. While there are relative challenges to IMPT planning that exist today such as particle range uncertainties and high sensitivity to anatomical changes, ongoing investigations in image-guidance techniques and robust optimization methods are promising. A systematic approach towards utilizing IMPT and additional prospective studies are necessary in order to more accurately estimate the clinical benefit of IMPT over IMRT and passive proton therapy on a case-by-case basis for patients with sub-site specific HNCs.
Collapse
|
20
|
Blanchard P, Gunn GB, Lin A, Foote RL, Lee NY, Frank SJ. Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Cancers. Semin Radiat Oncol 2018; 28:53-63. [PMID: 29173756 DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2017.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Because of its sharp lateral penumbra and steep distal fall-off, proton therapy offers dosimetric advantages over photon therapy. In head and neck cancer, proton therapy has been used for decades in the treatment of skull-base tumors. In recent years the use of proton therapy has been extended to numerous other disease sites, including nasopharynx, oropharynx, nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, periorbital tumors, skin, and salivary gland, or to reirradiation. The aim of this review is to present the physical properties and dosimetric benefit of proton therapy over advanced photon therapy; to summarize the clinical benefit described for each disease site; and to discuss issues of patient selection and cost-effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pierre Blanchard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Gary Brandon Gunn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Alexander Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Robert L Foote
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Nancy Y Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Kim JK, Leeman JE, Riaz N, McBride S, Tsai CJ, Lee NY. Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2018; 19:28. [PMID: 29744681 DOI: 10.1007/s11864-018-0546-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
OPINION STATEMENT The application of proton beam radiation therapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer has grown tremendously in the past few years. Globally, widespread interest in proton beam therapy has led to multiple research efforts regarding its therapeutic value and cost-effectiveness. The current standard of care using modern photon radiation technology has demonstrated excellent treatment outcomes, yet there are some situations where disease control remains suboptimal with the potential for detrimental acute and chronic toxicities. Due to the advantageous physical properties of the proton beam, proton beam therapy may be superior to photon therapy in some patient subsets for both disease control and patient quality of life. As enthusiasm and excitement for proton beam therapy continue to increase, clinical research and widespread adoption will elucidate the true value of proton beam therapy and give a greater understanding of the full risks and benefits of proton therapy in head and neck cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph K Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1250 1st Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - Jonathan E Leeman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1250 1st Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - Nadeem Riaz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1250 1st Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - Sean McBride
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1250 1st Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - Chiaojung Jillian Tsai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1250 1st Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - Nancy Y Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1250 1st Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
The evolution of proton beam therapy: Current and future status. Mol Clin Oncol 2017; 8:15-21. [PMID: 29399346 DOI: 10.3892/mco.2017.1499] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2017] [Accepted: 11/09/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton beam therapy (PBT) has been increasingly used in a variety of cancers due to its excellent physical properties and superior dosimetric parameters. PBT may improve patient survival by improving the local tumor treatment rate while reducing injury to normal organs, which may result in fewer radiation-induced adverse effects. However, the significant cost of establishing and maintaining proton facilities cannot be overlooked. In addition, there has been significant controversy regarding routine application of this treatment in certain types of cancer. The challenges of PBT in the future mainly include the lack of basic clinical trials, unclear biological effects, immature imaging technology and miniaturization of imaging guidance. Overcoming these limitations may promote the rapid development of PBT. We herein provide an overview of the existing literature on the efficacy and toxicity of common oncological applications of proton beam therapy.
Collapse
|
23
|
Blanchard P, Frank SJ. [Proton therapy for head and neck cancers]. Cancer Radiother 2017; 21:515-520. [PMID: 28869195 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2017.06.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2017] [Revised: 06/27/2017] [Accepted: 06/30/2017] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
The absence of exit dose and the sharp lateral penumbra are key assets for proton therapy, which are responsible for its dosimetric superiority over advanced photon radiotherapy. Dosimetric comparisons have consistently shown a reduction of the integral dose and the dose to organs at risk favouring intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) over intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The structures that benefit the most of these dosimetric improvements in head and neck cancers are the anterior oral cavity, the posterior fossa, the visual apparatus and swallowing structures. A number of publications have concluded that these dosimetric differences actually translate into reduced toxicities with IMPT, for example with regards to reduced weight loss or need for feeding tube. Patient survival is usually similar to IMRT series, except in base of skull or sinonasal malignancies, where a survival advantage of IMPT could exist. The goals of the present review is to describe the major characteristics of proton therapy, to analyse the clinical data with regards to head and neck cancer patients, and to highlight the issue of patient selection and physical and biological uncertainties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Blanchard
- Department of radiation oncology, MD Anderson cancer center, the university of Texas, Houston, Texas, États-Unis; Département de radiothérapie, Gustave-Roussy cancer campus, 114, rue Édouard-Vaillant, 94800 Villejuif, France.
| | - S J Frank
- Department of radiation oncology, MD Anderson cancer center, the university of Texas, Houston, Texas, États-Unis
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Leeman JE, Romesser PB, Zhou Y, McBride S, Riaz N, Sherman E, Cohen MA, Cahlon O, Lee N. Proton therapy for head and neck cancer: expanding the therapeutic window. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18:e254-e265. [DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30179-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 66] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2016] [Revised: 12/16/2016] [Accepted: 12/20/2016] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
25
|
Radiation Oncology--New Approaches in Squamous Cell Cancer of the Head and Neck. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2016; 29:1093-106. [PMID: 26568550 DOI: 10.1016/j.hoc.2015.07.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
The many advances in radiotherapy for squamous cell cancer of the head and neck described in this article will have significant effects on the ultimate outcomes of patients who receive this treatment. The technological and clinical advances should allow one to maintain or improve disease control, while moderating the toxicity associated with head and neck radiation therapy.
Collapse
|
26
|
Slater JD. Clinical Applications of Proton Radiation Treatment at Loma Linda University: Review of a Fifteen-year Experience. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2016; 5:81-9. [PMID: 16551128 DOI: 10.1177/153303460600500202] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton radiation therapy has been used at Loma Linda University Medical Center for 15 years, sometimes in combination with photon irradiation, surgery, and chemotherapy, but often as the sole modality. Our initial experience was based on established studies showing the utility of protons for certain management problems, but since then we have engaged in a planned program to exploit the capabilities of proton radiation and expand its applications in accordance with progressively accumulating clinical data. Our cumulative experience has confirmed that protons are a superb tool for delivering conformal radiation treatments, enabling delivery of effective doses of radiation and sparing normal tissues from radiation exposure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jerry D Slater
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Loma Linda University, 11234 Anderson Street, Loma Linda, CA 92354, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Abstract
Of the many ionizing particles discovered so far, only a few are reasonable to consider for radiation therapy. These include photons, protons, neutrons, electrons, mesons, antiprotons, and ions heavier than hydrogen. Most of these particles are used therapeutically to destroy or inactivate malignant and sometimes benign cells. Since the late 1930s, accelerators have been developed that have expanded radiation oncologists' abilities to produce various ionizing particle beams. Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have become increasingly interested in pursuing particles other than the conventional photons that have been used almost exclusively since X-rays were discovered in 1895. Physicians recognize that normal-tissue morbidity from all forms of anti-cancer treatment is the primary factor limiting the success of those treatments. In radiation therapy, all particles mentioned above can destroy any cancer cell; controlling the beam in three dimensions, thus providing the physician with the capability of avoiding normal-tissue injury, is the fundamental deficiency in the use of X-rays (photons). Heavy charged particles possess near-ideal characteristics for exercising control in three dimensions; their primary differences are due to the number of protons contained within their nuclei. As their number of protons increase (atomic number) their ionization density (LET) increases. In selecting the optimal particle for therapy from among the heavy charged particles, one must carefully consider the ionization density created by each specific particle. Ionization density creates both advantages and disadvantages for patient treatment; these factors must be matched with the patients' precise clinical needs. The current state of the art involves studying the clinical advantages and disadvantages of the lightest ion, the proton, as compared to other particles used or contemplated for use. Full analysis must await adequate data developed from long-term studies to determine the precise role of each potential particle for human use. It is expected that one particle beam will emerge as the mainstream for treating human disease, and a small number of particles may emerge in an adjunctive role.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James M Slater
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Loma Linda University, CSP A-1010, 11175 Campus Street, Loma Linda, CA 92354, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Gunn GB, Blanchard P, Garden AS, Zhu XR, Fuller CD, Mohamed AS, Morrison WH, Phan J, Beadle BM, Skinner HD, Sturgis EM, Kies MS, Hutcheson KA, Rosenthal DI, Mohan R, Gillin MT, Frank SJ. Clinical Outcomes and Patterns of Disease Recurrence After Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Oropharyngeal Squamous Carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95:360-367. [PMID: 27084653 PMCID: PMC5474303 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2015] [Revised: 02/03/2016] [Accepted: 02/04/2016] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE A single-institution prospective study was conducted to assess disease control and toxicity of proton therapy for patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Disease control, toxicity, functional outcomes, and patterns of failure for the initial cohort of patients with oropharyngeal squamous carcinoma (OPC) treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) were prospectively collected in 2 registry studies at a single institution. Locoregional failures were analyzed by using deformable image registration. RESULTS Fifty patients with OPC treated from March 3, 2011, to July 2014 formed the cohort. Eighty-four percent were male, 50% had never smoked, 98% had stage III/IV disease, 64% received concurrent therapy, and 35% received induction chemotherapy. Forty-four of 45 tumors (98%) tested for p16 were positive. All patients received IMPT (multifield optimization to n=46; single-field optimization to n=4). No Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 4 or 5 toxicities were observed. The most common grade 3 toxicities were acute mucositis in 58% of patients and late dysphagia in 12%. Eleven patients had a gastrostomy (feeding) tube placed during therapy, but none had a feeding tube at last follow-up. At a median follow-up time of 29 months, 5 patients had disease recurrence: local in 1, local and regional in 1, regional in 2, and distant in 1. The 2-year actuarial overall and progression-free survival rates were 94.5% and 88.6%. CONCLUSIONS The oncologic, toxicity, and functional outcomes after IMPT for OPC are encouraging and provide the basis for ongoing and future clinical studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Brandon Gunn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Pierre Blanchard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Adam S Garden
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - X Ronald Zhu
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - C David Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Medical Physics Program, The University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas
| | - Abdallah S Mohamed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Clinical Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Alexandria, Egypt
| | - William H Morrison
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jack Phan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Beth M Beadle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Heath D Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Erich M Sturgis
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Merrill S Kies
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Kate A Hutcheson
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - David I Rosenthal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Radhe Mohan
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael T Gillin
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Unilateral and bilateral neck SIB for head and neck cancer patients : Intensity-modulated proton therapy, tomotherapy, and RapidArc. Strahlenther Onkol 2016; 192:232-9. [PMID: 26852243 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-016-0945-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2015] [Accepted: 01/14/2016] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
AIM To compare simultaneous integrated boost plans for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), helical tomotherapy (HT), and RapidArc therapy (RA) for patients with head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 20 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck received definitive chemoradiation with bilateral (n = 14) or unilateral (n = 6) neck irradiation and were planned using IMPT, HT, and RA with 54.4, 60.8, and 70.4 GyE/Gy in 32 fractions. Dose distributions, coverage, conformity, homogeneity to planning target volumes (PTV)s and sparing of organs at risk and normal tissue were compared. RESULTS All unilateral and bilateral plans showed excellent PTV coverage and acceptable dose conformity. For unilateral treatment, IMPT delivered substantially lower mean doses to contralateral salivary glands (< 0.001-1.1 Gy) than both rotational techniques did (parotid gland: 6-10 Gy; submandibular gland: 15-20 Gy). Regarding the sparing of classical organs at risk for bilateral treatment, IMPT and HT were similarly excellent and RA was satisfactory. CONCLUSION For unilateral neck irradiation, IMPT may minimize the dry mouth risk in this subgroup but showed no advantage over HT for bilateral neck treatment regarding classical organ-at-risk sparing. All methods satisfied modern standards regarding toxicity and excellent target coverage for unilateral and bilateral treatment of head and neck cancer at the planning level.
Collapse
|
30
|
Veiga C, Alshaikhi J, Amos R, Lourenço AM, Modat M, Ourselin S, Royle G, McClelland JR. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Deformable Registration-Based “Dose of the Day” Calculations for Adaptive Proton Therapy. Int J Part Ther 2015. [DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-14-00024.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Catarina Veiga
- Radiation Physics Group, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Jailan Alshaikhi
- Radiation Physics Group, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
- Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospital, London NW1 2PG, UK
| | - Richard Amos
- Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospital, London NW1 2PG, UK
| | - Ana Mónica Lourenço
- Radiation Physics Group, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
- Ionizing Radiation Team, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington TW11 0LW, UK
| | - Marc Modat
- Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Sebastien Ourselin
- Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Gary Royle
- Radiation Physics Group, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Jamie R. McClelland
- Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Abstract
External beam radiation therapy is a commonly utilized treatment modality in the management of head and neck cancer. Given the close proximity of disease to critical normal tissues and structures, the delivery of external beam radiation therapy can result in severe acute and late toxicities, even when delivered with advanced photon-based techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy. The unique physical characteristics of protons make it a promising option in the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer, with the potential to improve sparing of normal tissues and/or safely escalate radiation doses. Clinical implementation will require the continued development of advanced techniques such as intensity-modulated proton therapy, using pencil beam scanning, as well as rigorous methods of quality assurance and adaptive techniques to accurately adjust to changes in anatomy due to disease response. Ultimately, the widespread adaptation and implementation of proton therapy for head and neck cancer will require direct, prospective comparisons to standard techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, with a focus on measures such as toxicity, disease control, and quality of life.
Collapse
|
32
|
Pfister DG, Spencer S, Brizel DM, Burtness B, Busse PM, Caudell JJ, Cmelak AJ, Colevas AD, Dunphy F, Eisele DW, Foote RL, Gilbert J, Gillison ML, Haddad RI, Haughey BH, Hicks WL, Hitchcock YJ, Jimeno A, Kies MS, Lydiatt WM, Maghami E, McCaffrey T, Mell LK, Mittal BB, Pinto HA, Ridge JA, Rodriguez CP, Samant S, Shah JP, Weber RS, Wolf GT, Worden F, Yom SS, McMillian N, Hughes M. Head and Neck Cancers, Version 1.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2015; 13:847-55; quiz 856. [PMID: 26150579 PMCID: PMC4976490 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 152] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the 2015 NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck (H&N) Cancers. These Insights describe the different types of particle therapy that may be used to treat H&N cancers, in contrast to traditional radiation therapy (RT) with photons (x-ray). Research is ongoing regarding the different types of particle therapy, including protons and carbon ions, with the goals of reducing the long-term side effects from RT and improving the therapeutic index. For the 2015 update, the NCCN H&N Cancers Panel agreed to delete recommendations for neutron therapy for salivary gland cancers, because of its limited availability, which has decreased over the past 2 decades; the small number of patients in the United States who currently receive this treatment; and concerns that the toxicity of neutron therapy may offset potential disease control advantages.
Collapse
|
33
|
|
34
|
Abstract
Proton beam therapy, the most common form of heavy-particle radiation therapy, is not a new invention, but it has gained considerable public attention because of the high cost of installing and operating the rapidly increasing number of treatment centers. This article reviews the physical properties of proton beam therapy and focuses on the up-to-date clinical evidence comparing proton beam therapy with the more standard and widely available radiation therapy treatment alternatives. In a cost-conscious era of health care, the hypothetical benefits of proton beam therapy will have to be supported by demonstrable clinical gains. Proton beam therapy represents, through its scale and its cost, a battleground for the policy debate around managing expensive technology in modern medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timur Mitin
- Timur Mitin, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Holliday EB, Frank SJ. Proton radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: a review of the clinical experience to date. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 89:292-302. [PMID: 24837890 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.02.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 88] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2013] [Revised: 02/13/2014] [Accepted: 02/20/2014] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
Proton beam radiation has been used for cancer treatment since the 1950s, but recent increasing interest in this form of therapy and the construction of hospital-based and clinic-based facilities for its delivery have greatly increased both the number of patients and the variety of tumors being treated with proton therapy. The mass of proton particles and their unique physical properties (ie, the Bragg peak) allow proton therapy to spare normal tissues distal to the tumor target from incidental irradiation. Initial observations show that proton therapy is particularly useful for treating tumors in challenging locations close to nontarget critical structures. Specifically, improvements in local control outcomes for patients with chordoma, chonodrosarcoma, and tumors in the sinonasal regions have been reported in series using proton. Improved local control and survival outcomes for patients with cancer of the head and neck region have also been seen with the advent of improvements in better imaging and multimodality therapy comprising surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. However, aggressive local therapy in the proximity of critical normal structures to tumors in the head and neck region may produce debilitating early and late toxic effects. Great interest has been expressed in evaluating whether proton therapy can improve outcomes, especially early and late toxicity, when used in the treatment of head and neck malignancies. This review summarizes the progress made to date in addressing this question.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma B Holliday
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Steven J Frank
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Foote RL, Stafford SL, Petersen IA, Pulido JS, Clarke MJ, Schild SE, Garces YI, Olivier KR, Miller RC, Haddock MG, Yan E, Laack NN, Arndt CAS, Buskirk SJ, Miller VL, Brent CR, Kruse JJ, Ezzell GA, Herman MG, Gunderson LL, Erlichman C, Diasio RB. The clinical case for proton beam therapy. Radiat Oncol 2012; 7:174. [PMID: 23083010 PMCID: PMC3549771 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717x-7-174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2012] [Accepted: 10/17/2012] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Over the past 20 years, several proton beam treatment programs have been implemented throughout the United States. Increasingly, the number of new programs under development is growing. Proton beam therapy has the potential for improving tumor control and survival through dose escalation. It also has potential for reducing harm to normal organs through dose reduction. However, proton beam therapy is more costly than conventional x-ray therapy. This increased cost may be offset by improved function, improved quality of life, and reduced costs related to treating the late effects of therapy. Clinical research opportunities are abundant to determine which patients will gain the most benefit from proton beam therapy. We review the clinical case for proton beam therapy. SUMMARY SENTENCE: Proton beam therapy is a technically advanced and promising form of radiation therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert L Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Abstract
Among various types of ion species, carbon ions are considered to have the most balanced, optimal properties in terms of possessing physically and biologically effective dose localization in the body. This is due to the fact that when compared with photon beams, carbon ion beams offer improved dose distribution, leading to the concentration of the sufficient dose within a target volume while minimizing the dose in the surrounding normal tissues. In addition, carbon ions, being heavier than protons, provide a higher biological effectiveness, which increases with depth, reaching the maximum at the end of the beam's range. This is practically an ideal property from the standpoint of cancer radiotherapy. Clinical studies have been carried out in the world to confirm the efficacy of carbon ions against a variety of tumors as well as to develop effective techniques for delivering an efficient dose to the tumor. Through clinical experiences of carbon ion radiotherapy at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences and Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, a significant reduction in the overall treatment time with acceptable toxicities has been obtained in almost all types of tumors. This means that carbon ion radiotherapy has meanwhile achieved for itself a solid place in general practice. This review describes clinical results of carbon ion radiotherapy together with physical, biological and technological aspects of carbon ions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hirohiko Tsujii
- Research Center for Charged Particle Therapy, National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Chiba, Japan.
| | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Parvathaneni U, Laramore GE, Liao JJ. Technical advances and pitfalls in head and neck radiotherapy. JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 2012; 2012:597467. [PMID: 22701482 PMCID: PMC3369487 DOI: 10.1155/2012/597467] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2012] [Accepted: 03/21/2012] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) is the standard of care in the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) based on level 1 evidence. Technical advances in radiotherapy have revolutionized the treatment of HNSCC, with the most tangible gain being a reduction in long term morbidity. However, these benefits come with a serious and sobering price. Today, there is a greater chance of missing the target/tumor due to uncertainties in target volume definition by the clinician that is demanded by the highly conformal planning process involved with IMRT. Unless this is urgently addressed, our patients would be better served with the historically practiced non conformal radiotherapy, than IMRT which promises lesser morbidity. Image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) ensures the level of set up accuracy warranted to deliver a highly conformal treatment plan and should be utilized with IMRT, where feasible. Proton therapy has a theoretical physical advantage over photon therapy due to a lack of "exit dose". However, clinical data supporting the routine use of this technology for HNSCC are currently sparse. The purpose of this article is to review the literature, discuss the salient issues and make recommendations that address the gaps in knowledge.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Upendra Parvathaneni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Abstract
Proton beam therapy (PBT) makes it possible to deliver a high concentration of radiation to a tumor using its Bragg peak, and it is simple to utilize as its radiobiological characteristics are identical to those of photon beams. PBT has now been used for half a century, and more than 60,000 patients worldwide are reported to have been treated with proton beams. The most significant change to PBT occurred in the 1990s, when the Loma Linda University Medical Center became the first hospital in the world to operate a medically dedicated proton therapy facility. Following its success, similar medically dedicated facilities have been constructed. Internationally, results have demonstrated the therapeutic superiority of PBT over alternative treatment options for several disease sites. Further advances in PBT are expected from both clinical and technological perspectives.
Collapse
|
40
|
Allen AM, Pawlicki T, Dong L, Fourkal E, Buyyounouski M, Cengel K, Plastaras J, Bucci MK, Yock TI, Bonilla L, Price R, Harris EE, Konski AA. An evidence based review of proton beam therapy: the report of ASTRO's emerging technology committee. Radiother Oncol 2012; 103:8-11. [PMID: 22405807 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2012.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 148] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2011] [Revised: 01/30/2012] [Accepted: 02/04/2012] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a novel method for treating malignant disease with radiotherapy. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the state of the science of PBT and arrive at a recommendation for the use of PBT. The emerging technology committee of the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) routinely evaluates new modalities in radiotherapy and assesses the published evidence to determine recommendations for the society as a whole. In 2007, a Proton Task Force was assembled to evaluate the state of the art of PBT. This report reflects evidence collected up to November 2009. Data was reviewed for PBT in central nervous system tumors, gastrointestinal malignancies, lung, head and neck, prostate, and pediatric tumors. Current data do not provide sufficient evidence to recommend PBT in lung cancer, head and neck cancer, GI malignancies, and pediatric non-CNS malignancies. In hepatocellular carcinoma and prostate cancer and there is evidence for the efficacy of PBT but no suggestion that it is superior to photon based approaches. In pediatric CNS malignancies PBT appears superior to photon approaches but more data is needed. In large ocular melanomas and chordomas, we believe that there is evidence for a benefit of PBT over photon approaches. PBT is an important new technology in radiotherapy. Current evidence provides a limited indication for PBT. More robust prospective clinical trials are needed to determine the appropriate clinical setting for PBT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aaron M Allen
- Davidoff Center, Tel Aviv University, Petach Tikvah, Israel.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Simone CB, Ly D, Dan TD, Ondos J, Ning H, Belard A, O'Connell J, Miller RW, Simone NL. Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, adaptive radiotherapy, proton radiotherapy, and adaptive proton radiotherapy for treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2011; 101:376-82. [PMID: 21663988 PMCID: PMC3174314 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.05.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 117] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2010] [Revised: 05/11/2011] [Accepted: 05/12/2011] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Various radiotherapy planning methods for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) have been proposed to decrease normal tissue toxicity. We compare IMRT, adaptive IMRT, proton therapy (IMPT), and adaptive IMPT for SCCHN. MATERIALS AND METHODS Initial and re-simulation CT images from 10 consecutive patients with SCCHN were used to quantify dosimetric differences between photon and proton therapy. Contouring was performed on both CTs, and plans (n=40 plans) and dose-volume histograms were generated. RESULTS The mean GTV volume decreased 53.4% with re-simulation. All plans provided comparable PTV coverage. Compared with IMRT, adaptive IMRT significantly reduced the maximum dose to the mandible (p=0.020) and mean doses to the contralateral parotid gland (p=0.049) and larynx (p=0.049). Compared with IMRT and adaptive IMRT, IMPT significantly lowered the maximum doses to the spinal cord (p<0.002 for both) and brainstem (p<0.002 for both) and mean doses to the larynx (p<0.002 for both) and ipsilateral (p=0.004 IMRT, p=0.050 adaptive) and contralateral (p<0.002 IMRT, p=0.010 adaptive) parotid glands. Adaptive IMPT significantly reduced doses to all critical structures compared with IMRT and adaptive IMRT and several critical structures compared with non-adaptive IMPT. CONCLUSIONS Although adaptive IMRT reduced dose to several normal structures compared with standard IMRT, non-adaptive proton therapy had a more favorable dosimetric profile than IMRT or adaptive IMRT and may obviate the need for adaptive planning. Protons allowed significant sparing of the spinal cord, parotid glands, larynx, and brainstem and should be considered for SCCHN to decrease normal tissue toxicity while still providing optimal tumor coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles B Simone
- National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Radiation Oncology Branch, Bethesda 20982, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Mendenhall NP, Malyapa RS, Su Z, Yeung D, Mendenhall WM, Li Z. Proton therapy for head and neck cancer: rationale, potential indications, practical considerations, and current clinical evidence. Acta Oncol 2011; 50:763-71. [PMID: 21767172 DOI: 10.3109/0284186x.2011.590147] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
There is a strong rationale for potential benefits from proton therapy (PT) for selected cancers of the head and neck because of the opportunity to improve the therapeutic ratio by improving radiation dose distributions and because of the significant differences in radiation dose distribution achievable with x-ray-based radiation therapy (RT) and PT. Comparisons of dose distributions between x-ray-based and PT plans in selected cases show specific benefits in dose distribution likely to translate into improved clinical outcomes. However, the use of PT in head and neck cancers requires special considerations in the simulation and treatment planning process, and currently available PT technology may not permit realization of the maximum potential benefits of PT. To date, few clinical data are available, but early clinical experiences in sinonasal tumors in particular suggest significant improvements in both disease control and radiation-related toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy P Mendenhall
- University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, Florida 32206, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
|
44
|
Abstract
Radiation therapy with charged particles, such as protons and heavier ions, provides physical selectivity and therefore allows for favorable dose distributions in comparison with conventional photon radiotherapy. Carbon ions furthermore exhibit biologic advantages related to their high linear energy transfer properties in a number of tumors known to be relatively insensitive to low-linear energy transfer radiation therapy. Over the last 2 decades, major developments in the fields of accelerator technology, diagnostic techniques, and beam delivery methods have been made. These developments formed the basis for the application of particle beams in clinical surroundings. Many clinical centers are already considering the introduction of radiation therapy with charged particles. This article reviews the clinical experience with particle therapy in adults available so far.
Collapse
|
45
|
Abstract
Proton beam therapy provides the opportunity for more localized delivery of ionizing radiation with the potential for improved normal tissue avoidance to reduce treatment related morbidity and to allow for dose escalation to improve disease control and survival without increased toxicity. However, a systematic review of published peer-reviewed literature reported previously and updated here is devoid of any clinical data demonstrating benefit in terms of survival, tumor control, or toxicity in comparison with best conventional treatment for any of the tumors so far treated including skull base and ocular tumors, prostate cancer and childhood malignancies. The current lack of evidence for benefit of protons should provide a stimulus for continued research. Well designed in silico clinical trials using validated normal tissue complication probability-models are important to predict the magnitude of benefit for individual tumor sites but the future use of protons should be guided by clear evidence of benefit demonstrated in well-designed prospective studies, away from commercial influence, and this is likely to require international collaboration. Any complex and expensive technology, including proton therapy, should not be employed on the basis of belief alone and requires testing to avoid inappropriate use of potential detriment to future patients.
Collapse
|
46
|
Abstract
Proton beam radiation therapy (PBRT) has unique physical properties (e.g., Bragg Peak) that limit the amount of normal tissue irradiated in the head and neck region while maximizing the radiation delivered to the tumor. Radiation therapy is commonly used in both the primary and adjuvant setting for many head and neck malignancies. Limiting the unnecessary radiation to normal tissues within the head and neck region can result in a profound improvement in quality of life during and after treatment. Although PBRT was initially developed in the 1950s, recent technological advances have permitted the development of hospital-based facilities for proton delivery. PBRT has been shown to improve outcomes for patients with sinonasal tumors, chordomas, chondrosarcomas, ocular, and periocular malignancies. Further development of intensity-modulated proton therapy will permit comprehensive treatment for head and neck tumors.
Collapse
|
47
|
Bouyon-Monteau A, Habrand JL, Datchary J, Alapetite C, Bolle S, Dendale R, Feuvret L, Helfre S, Calugaru V, Cosset JM, Bey P. [Is proton beam therapy the future of radiotherapy? Part I: clinical aspects]. Cancer Radiother 2010; 14:727-38. [PMID: 20427218 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2010.01.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2009] [Revised: 01/16/2010] [Accepted: 01/21/2010] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Proton beam therapy uses positively charged particles, protons, whose physical properties improve dose-distribution (Bragg peak characterized by a sharp distal and lateral penumbra) compared with conventional photon-based radiation therapy (X-ray). These ballistic advantages apply to the treatment of deep-sited tumours located close to critical structures and requiring high-dose levels. [60-250 MeV] proton-beam therapy is now widely accepted as the "gold standard" in specific indications in adults--ocular melanoma, chordoma and chondrosarcoma of the base of skull --and is regarded as a highly promising treatment modality in the treatment of paediatric malignancies (brain tumours, sarcomas…). This includes the relative sparing of surrounding normal organs from low and mid-doses that can cause deleterious side-effects such as radiation-induced secondary malignancies. Other clinical studies are currently testing proton beam in dose-escalation evaluations, in prostate, lung, hepatocellular cancers, etc. Clinical validation of these new indications appears necessary. To date, over 60,000 patients worldwide have received part or all of their radiation therapy program by proton beams, in approximately 30 treatment facilities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Bouyon-Monteau
- Centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, institut Curie, campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay cedex, France
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Suit H, DeLaney T, Goldberg S, Paganetti H, Clasie B, Gerweck L, Niemierko A, Hall E, Flanz J, Hallman J, Trofimov A. Proton vs carbon ion beams in the definitive radiation treatment of cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 2010; 95:3-22. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.01.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 170] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2009] [Revised: 01/22/2010] [Accepted: 01/23/2010] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
|
49
|
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study evaluates the efficacy of combining proton irradiation with gemcitabine, and the role the inhibitor of apoptosis proteins survivin and X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis protein (XIAP) play in the radiosensitive versus radioresistant status of pancreatic cancer. METHODS The radioresistant (PANC-1) and radiosensitive (MIA PaCa-2) pancreatic carcinoma cells' response to combined gemcitabine and proton irradiation was compared. Cells were treated with 0.1 to 500 microM gemcitabine and 0- to 15-Gy proton irradiation after which trypan blue and flow cytometry were used to determine changes in the cell cycle and apoptosis. Expression levels of survivin and XIAP were measured using Western blotting. Combination therapy with gemcitabine for 24 hours followed by 10-Gy proton irradiation proved most effective. RESULTS Gemcitabine and proton irradiation resulted in increased survivin levels with little apoptosis. However, combination therapy resulted in robust apoptotic induction with a concomitant survivin and XIAP reduction in the MIA PaCa-2 cells with little effect in the PANC-1 cells. Small interfering RNA studies confirmed a role for XIAP in the radioresistance of PANC-1 cells. CONCLUSIONS Our data demonstrate that combining gemcitabine and proton irradiation enhances apoptosis in human pancreatic cancer cells when XIAP levels decrease. Therefore, XIAP may play an important role in human pancreatic cancer proton radioresistance.
Collapse
|
50
|
Ask A, Björk-Eriksson T, Zackrisson B, Blomquist E, Glimelius B. The potential of proton beam radiation therapy in head and neck cancer. Acta Oncol 2009; 44:876-80. [PMID: 16332595 DOI: 10.1080/02841860500355991] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
A group of Swedish oncologists and hospital physicists have estimated the number of patients in Sweden suitable for proton beam therapy. The estimations have been based on current statistics of tumour incidence, number of patients potentially eligible for radiation treatment, scientific support from clinical trials and model dose planning studies and knowledge of the dose-response relations of different tumours and normal tissues. In head and neck cancer, including thyroid cancer, it is assessed that at least 300 patients annually will gain sufficiently from proton beam therapy, both to improve tumour control and to decrease toxicity to compensate for the increased treatment costs using protons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anders Ask
- Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|