Dosimetric Feasibility of Hypofractionated Proton Radiotherapy for Neoadjuvant Pancreatic Cancer Treatment

Proton Therapy in the Management of Pancreatic Cancer

Simple Summary

Radiation treatment plays a pivotal a role in the management of pancreatic cancer, mainly in the neoadjuvant setting for borderline resectable tumors and in the definitive setting for unresectable localized disease. Most of the studies on pancreatic cancer use photon-based radiation therapy modalities. However, there is a growing interest in the application of protons therapy for gastrointestinal cancers. This review summarizes the literature on the use of proton therapy in the management of pancreatic cancer.

Abstract

Radiation therapy plays a central role in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. While generally shown to be feasible, proton irradiation, particularly when an ablative dose is planned, remains a challenge, especially due to tumor motion and the proximity to organs at risk, like the stomach, duodenum, and bowel. Clinically, standard doses of proton radiation treatment have not been shown to be statistically different from photon radiation treatment in terms of oncologic outcomes and toxicity rates as per non-randomized comparative studies. Fractionation schedules and concurrent chemotherapy combinations are yet to be optimized for proton therapy and are the subject of ongoing trials.

Efficacy and feasibility of proton beam radiotherapy using the simultaneous integrated boost technique for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and feasibility of proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) using the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), 81 LAPC patients receiving PBT using SIB technique were analyzed. The prescribed doses to planning target volume (PTV)1 and PTV2 were 45 or 50 GyE and 30 GyE in 10 fractions, respectively. Of 81 patients, 18 patients received PBT without upfront and maintenance chemotherapy (group I), 44 received PBT followed by maintenance chemotherapy (group II), and 19 received PBT after upfront chemotherapy followed by maintenance chemotherapy (n = 16) (group III). The median follow-up time was 19.6 months (range 2.3-57.6 months), and the median overall survival (OS) times of all patients and of those in groups I, II, and III were 19.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.8-21.7 months), 15.3 months (95% CI 12.9-17.7 months), 18.3 months (95% CI 15.9-20.7 months), and 26.1 months (95% CI 17.8-34.3 months), respectively (p = 0.043). Acute and late grade ≥ 3 toxicities related to PBT were not observed. PBT with the SIB technique showed promising OS for LAPC patients with a safe toxicity profile, and intensive combinations of PBT and chemotherapy could improve OS in these patients.

Dose-Volume and Radiobiological Model-Based Comparative Evaluation of the Gastrointestinal Toxicity Risk of Photon and Proton Irradiation Plans in Localized Pancreatic Cancer Without Distant Metastasis

Background: Radiobiological model-based studies of photon-modulated radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer have reported reduced gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, although the risk is still high. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential of 3D-passive scattering proton beam therapy (3D-PSPBT) in limiting GI organ at risk (OAR) toxicity in localized pancreatic cancer based on dosimetric data and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model. Methods: The data of 24 pancreatic cancer patients were retrospectively analyzed, and these patients were planned with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and 3D-PSPBT. The tumor was targeted without elective nodal coverage. All generated plans consisted of a 50.4-GyE (Gray equivalent) dose in 28 fractions with equivalent OAR constraints, and they were normalized to cover 50% of the planning treatment volume (PTV) with 100% of the prescription dose. Physical dose distributions were evaluated. GI-OAR toxicity risk for different endpoints was estimated by using published NTCP Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) models. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the dosimetric data, and ΔNTCP_IMRT-PSPBT and ΔNTCP_VMAT-PSPBT were also computed. Results: Similar homogeneity and conformity for the clinical target volume (CTV) and PTV were exhibited by all three planning techniques (P > 0.05). 3D-PSPBT resulted in a significant dose reduction for GI-OARs in both the low-intermediate dose range (below 30 GyE) and the highest dose region (D _max and V _{50 GyE}) in comparison with IMRT and VMAT (P < 0.05). Based on the NTCP evaluation, the NTCP reduction for GI-OARs by 3D-PSPBT was minimal in comparison with IMRT and VMAT. Conclusion: 3D-PSPBT results in minimal NTCP reduction and has less potential to substantially reduce the toxicity risk of upper GI bleeding, ulceration, obstruction, and perforation endpoints compared to IMRT and VMAT. 3D-PSPBT may have the potential to reduce acute dose-limiting toxicity in the form of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea by reducing the GI-OAR treated volume in the low-to-intermediate dose range. However, this result needs to be further evaluated in future clinical studies.

Beam direction arrangement using a superconducting rotating gantry in carbon ion treatment for pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVES

Carbon ion radiotherapy provides a concentrated dose distribution to the target and has several advantages over photon radiotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the optimal beam direction in carbon ion pencil beam scanning and compare dose distributions between the rotating gantry system (RGS) and fixed-beam port system (FBPS).

METHODS

Patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer were randomly selected. First, dose-volume parameters of 7-beam directions in the prone position were evaluated. Second, a composite plan developed using 4-beam directions in RGS was compared with that developed using FBPS, with a total prescribed dose of 55.2 Gy (relative biological effectiveness, RBE) in 12 fractions.

RESULTS

Target coverages in the composite plan did not widely differ. For the first and second segments of the duodenum, the mean dose of D2cc was not significantly changed (23.80 ± 11.90 Gy [RBE] and 25.63 ± 10.41 Gy [RBE] for RGS and FBPS, respectively). However, the dose-volume histogram curve in RGS showed a prominent dose reduction in the low-dose region. No significant differences were observed in the stomach, third and fourth segments of the duodenum, and spinal cord. The mean dose of the total kidney was similar between RGS and FBPS.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with that of FBPS, the 4-beam arrangement in the prone position using RGS provides comparable or superior dose distribution in the surrounding normal organ while achieving the same target coverage. In addition, RGS allows for single-patient positioning.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

RGS is beneficial in delivering radiotherapy doses to the duodenum and allows for single-patient positioning and a simple planning process.

Elective nodal irradiation with simultaneous integrated boost stereotactic body radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer: Analyses of planning feasibility and geometrically driven DVH prediction model

PURPOSE

We evaluate the feasibility of the elective nodal irradiation strategy in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Three simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)-SBRT plans (Boost1, Boost2, and Boost3) were retrospectively generated for each of 20 different patients. Boost1 delivered 33 and 25 Gy to PTV1 and PTV2, respectively. Boost2 delivered 40, 33, and 25 Gy to boostCTV, PTV1, and PTV2, respectively. Boost3 delivered 33 and 25 Gy to PTV1 and PTV3, respectively. PTV1 covered the initial standard SBRT plan (InitPlan) gross tumor volume (GTV). PTV2 covered CTVgeom which was created by a 10-mm expansion (15 mm posterior) of GTV. PTV3 covered CTVprop which included elective nodal regions. The boostCTV included GTV as well as involved vasculature. The planning feasibility in each scenario and dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were analyzed and compared with the InitPlan (delivered 33 Gy only to PTV1) by paired t-test. Next, a novel DVH prediction model was developed and its performance was evaluated according to the prediction accuracy (AC) of planning violations. Then, the model was used to simulate the impacts of GTV-to-organs at risk (OAR) distance and gastrointestinal (GI) OAR volume variations on planning feasibility.

RESULTS

Significant dose increases were observed in GI-OARs in SIB-SBRT plans when compared with InitPlan. All dose constraints were met in 63% of cases in InitPlan, Boost1, and Boost2, whereas Boost3 developed DVH violations in all cases. Utilizing previous patient anatomy, the novel DVH prediction model achieved a high AC in the prediction of violations for GI-OARs; the positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and AC were 66%, 90%, and 84%, respectively. Experiments with the model demonstrated that the larger proximity volume of GI-OAR at the shorter distance substantially impacted on planning violations.

CONCLUSIONS

SIB-SBRT plan with geometrically defined prophylactic areas can be dosimetrically feasible, but including all nodal areas with 25 Gy in five fractions appears to be unrealistic.

Effectiveness and Safety of Simultaneous Integrated Boost-Proton Beam Therapy for Localized Pancreatic Cancer

Purpose:

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and feasibility of simultaneous integrated boost-proton beam therapy in patients with localized pancreatic cancer.

Methods:

Thirty-seven patients with localized pancreatic cancer underwent simultaneous integrated boost-proton beam therapy, and 8 (21.6%) patients received induction chemotherapy. The internal target volume was obtained by summing the gross tumor volumes in exhalation phase computed tomography images. Planning target volume 1 included internal target volume plus 3 to 5 mm margins, excluding the 5 mm expanded volume of gastrointestinal structures, and planning target volume 2 included the internal target volume plus 7 to 12 mm margins. The prescribed doses to planning target volume 1 and planning target volume 2 were 45 GyE (equivalent dose in 2 Gy, 54.4 GyE₁₀) and 30 GyE (equivalent dose in 2 Gy, 32.5 GyE₁₀) in 10 fractions, respectively.

Results:

Overall, treatment was well tolerated, with no grade of toxicity ≥3. Median overall survival was 19.3 months, and 1-year local progression-free survival, relapse-free survival, and overall survival rates were 64.8%, 33.2%, and 75.7%, respectively. Patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost-proton beam therapy after induction chemotherapy had a significantly higher median overall survival time compared to those with simultaneous integrated boost-proton beam therapy alone (21.6 months vs 16.7 months, P = .031). Multivariate analysis showed that induction chemotherapy was a significant factor for overall survival (P < .05).

Conclusions:

Simultaneous integrated boost-proton beam therapy could be feasible and promising for patients with localized pancreatic cancer.

Comparison of different treatment planning approaches for intensity-modulated proton therapy with simultaneous integrated boost for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant radio(chemo)therapy of non-metastasized, borderline resectable or unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer is complex and prone to cause side-effects, e.g., in gastrointestinal organs. Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) enables a high conformity to the targets while simultaneously sparing the normal tissue such that dose-escalation strategies come within reach. In this in silico feasibility study, we compared four IMPT planning strategies including robust multi-field optimization (rMFO) and a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for dose-escalation in pancreatic cancer patients.

METHODS

For six pancreatic cancer patients referred for adjuvant or primary radiochemotherapy, four rMFO-IMPT-SIB treatment plans each, consisting of two or three (non-)coplanar beam arrangements, were optimized. Dose values for both targets, i.e., the elective clinical target volume [CTV, prescribed dose D_pres = 51Gy(RBE)] and the boost target [D_pres = 66Gy(RBE)], for the organs at risk as well as target conformity and homogeneity indexes, derived from the dose volume histograms, were statistically compared.

RESULTS

All treatment plans of each strategy fulfilled the prescribed doses to the targets (D_{pres(GTV,CTV)} = 100%, D_{95%,(GTV,CTV)} ≥ 95%, D_2%,(GTV,CTV) ≤ 107%). No significant differences for the conformity index were found (p > 0.05), however, treatment plans with a three non-coplanar beam strategy were most homogenous to both targets (p < 0.045). The median value of all dosimetric results of the large and small bowel as well as for the liver and the spinal cord met the dose constraints with all beam arrangements. Irrespective of the planning strategies, the dose constraint for the duodenum and stomach were not met. Using the three-beam arrangements, the dose to the left kidney could be significant decreased when compared to a two-beam strategy (p < 0.045).

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings we recommend a three-beam configuration with at least one non-coplanar beam for dose-escalated SIB with rMFO-IMPT in advanced pancreatic cancer patients achieving a homogeneous dose distribution in the target while simultaneously minimizing the dose to the organs at risk. Further treatment planning studies on aspects of breathing and organ motion need to be performed.

Initial experience with intensity modulated proton therapy for intact, clinically localized pancreas cancer: Clinical implementation, dosimetric analysis, acute treatment-related adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes

Purpose

Pencil-beam scanning intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may allow for an improvement in the therapeutic ratio compared with conventional techniques of radiation therapy delivery for pancreatic cancer. The purpose of this study was to describe the clinical implementation of IMPT for intact and clinically localized pancreatic cancer, perform a matched dosimetric comparison with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and report acute adverse event (AE) rates and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of health-related quality of life.

Methods and materials

Between July 2016 and March 2017, 13 patients with localized pancreatic cancer underwent concurrent capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiation therapy (CRT) utilizing IMPT to a dose of 50 Gy (radiobiological effectiveness: 1.1). A VMAT plan was generated for each patient to use for dosimetric comparison. Patients were assessed prospectively for AEs and completed PRO questionnaires utilizing the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary at baseline and upon completion of CRT.

Results

There was no difference in mean target coverage between IMPT and VMAT (P > .05). IMPT offered significant reductions in dose to organs at risk, including the small bowel, duodenum, stomach, large bowel, liver, and kidneys (P < .05). All patients completed treatment without radiation therapy breaks. The median weight loss during treatment was 1.6 kg (range, 0.1-5.7 kg). No patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary scores prior to versus at the end of CRT were 142 (range, 113-163) versus 136 (range, 107-173; P = .18).

Conclusions

Pencil-beam scanning IMPT was feasible and offered significant reductions in radiation exposure to multiple gastrointestinal organs at risk. IMPT was associated with no grade ≥3 gastrointestinal AEs and no change in baseline PROs, but the conclusions are limited due to the patient sample size. Further clinical studies are warranted to evaluate whether these dosimetric advantages translate into clinically meaningful benefits.

Comparison of gastric-cancer radiotherapy performed with volumetric modulated arc therapy or single-field uniform-dose proton therapy

BACKGROUND

Proton-beam therapy of large abdominal cancers has been questioned due to the large variations in tissue density in the abdomen. The aim of this study was to evaluate the importance of these variations for the dose distributions produced in adjuvant radiotherapy of gastric cancer (GC), implemented with photon-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or with proton-beam single-field uniform-dose (SFUD) method.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eight GC patients were included in this study. For each patient, a VMAT- and an SFUD-plan were created. The prescription dose was 45 Gy (IsoE) given in 25 fractions. The plans were prepared on the original CT studies and the doses were thereafter recalculated on two modified CT studies (one with extra water filling and the other with expanded abdominal air-cavity volumes).

RESULTS

Compared to the original VMAT plans, the SFUD plans resulted in reduced median values for the V18 of the left kidney (26%), the liver mean dose (14.8 Gy (IsoE)) and the maximum dose given to the spinal cord (26.6 Gy (IsoE)). However, the PTV coverage decreased when the SFUD plans were recalculated on CT sets with extra air- (86%) and water-filling (87%). The added water filling only led to minor dosimetric changes for the OARs, but the extra air caused significant increases of the median values of V18 for the right and left kidneys (10% and 12%, respectively) and of V10 for the liver (12%). The density changes influenced the dose distributions in the VMAT plans to a minor extent.

CONCLUSIONS

SFUD was found to be superior to VMAT for the plans prepared on the original CT sets. However, SFUD was inferior to VMAT for the modified CT sets.

The Role of Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer in the Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Settings

Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although surgery remains the only curative treatment, chemotherapy and radiation therapy are frequently used. In the adjuvant setting, radiation is usually delivered with chemotherapy to eradicate residual microscopic or macroscopic disease in the resection bed. Neoadjuvant radiation therapy has become more frequently utilized. This article reviews the historical and modern literature regarding radiation therapy in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, focusing on the evolution of radiation therapy techniques and clinical trials in an attempt to identify patients best suited to receiving radiation therapy.

Immune modulation by hypofractionated stereotactic radiation therapy: Therapeutic implications

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become an attractive treatment modality and a safe, non-invasive alternative to surgery to control primary or secondary malignant tumors. While emphasis has been on the local tumor control as a treatment objective for SBRT, the rare but intriguing observations of abscopal (or out-of-field) effects have pointed to the exciting possibility of activating anti-tumor immunity by using high-dose radiation. This review summarizes the available evidence supporting immune modulation by SBRT alone, as well as its potential combination with immunotherapy. Promising preclinical research has revealed an array of immune changes following SBRT, which could affect the balance between anti-tumor immunity and tumor-promoting immunosuppression. However, shifting this balance in the clinical setting to obtain survival benefits has rarely been achieved so far, emphasizing the need for a better understanding of the interactions between high-dose radiotherapy and immunity or immunotherapy. Nevertheless, the combination of SBRT with immunotherapy, particularly with immune checkpoint blockers, has the clear potential to substantially increase the rate of abscopal effects. This warrants further research in this area, both in mechanistic preclinical studies and in clinical trials incorporating correlative studies.

A dosimetric comparison of proton and photon therapy in unresectable cancers of the head of pancreas

PURPOSE

Uncontrolled local growth is the cause of death in ∼ 30% of patients with unresectable pancreatic cancers. The addition of standard-dose radiotherapy to gemcitabine has been shown to confer a modest survival benefit in this population. Radiation dose escalation with three-dimensional planning is not feasible, but high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been shown to improve local control. Still, dose-escalation remains limited by gastrointestinal toxicity. In this study, the authors investigate the potential use of double scattering (DS) and pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy in limiting dose to critical organs at risk.

METHODS

The authors compared DS, PBS, and IMRT plans in 13 patients with unresectable cancer of the pancreatic head, paying particular attention to duodenum, small intestine, stomach, liver, kidney, and cord constraints in addition to target volume coverage. All plans were calculated to 5500 cGy in 25 fractions with equivalent constraints and normalized to prescription dose. All statistics were by two-tailed paired t-test.

RESULTS

Both DS and PBS decreased stomach, duodenum, and small bowel dose in low-dose regions compared to IMRT (p < 0.01). However, protons yielded increased doses in the mid to high dose regions (e.g., 23.6-53.8 and 34.9-52.4 Gy for duodenum using DS and PBS, respectively; p < 0.05). Protons also increased generalized equivalent uniform dose to duodenum and stomach, however these differences were small (<5% and 10%, respectively; p < 0.01). Doses to other organs-at-risk were within institutional constraints and placed no obvious limitations on treatment planning.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton therapy does not appear to reduce OAR volumes receiving high dose. Protons are able to reduce the treated volume receiving low-intermediate doses, however the clinical significance of this remains to be determined in future investigations.

Evaluation of normal tissue exposure in patients receiving radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer based on RTOG 0848

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is a highly aggressive malignancy. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is utilized in many cases to improve locoregional control; however, toxicities associated with radiation can be significant given the location of the pancreas. RTOG 0848 seeks to evaluate chemoradiation using either intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or 3D conformal photon radiotherapy (3DCRT) modalities as an adjuvant treatment. The purpose of this study is to quantify the dosimetric changes seen when using IMRT or 3D CRT photon modalities, as well as proton radiotherapy, in patients receiving CRT for cancer of the pancreas treated per RTOG 0848 guidelines.

MATERIALS

Ten patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma treated between 2010 and 2013 were evaluated in this study. All patients were simulated with contrast-enhanced CT imaging. Separate treatment plans using IMRT and 3DCRT as well as proton radiotherapy were created for each patient. All planning volumes were created per RTOG 0848 protocol. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were calculated and analyzed in order to compare plans between the three modalities. The organs at risk (OAR) evaluated in this study are the kidneys, liver, small bowel, and spinal cord.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the IMRT and 3DCRT plans in dose delivered to the kidneys, liver, or bowel. The proton radiotherapy plans were found to deliver lower mean total kidney doses, mean liver doses, and liver D1/3 compared to the IMRT plans. The proton plans also gave less mean liver dose, liver D1/3, bowel V15, and bowel V50 in comparison to the 3DCRT.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients receiving radiotherapy per ongoing RTOG 0848 for pancreatic cancer, there was no significant difference in normal tissue sparing between IMRT and 3DCRT treatment planning. Therefore, the choice between the two modalities should not be a confounding factor in this study. The proton plans also demonstrated improved OAR sparing compared to both IMRT and 3DCRT treatment plans.

Neoadjuvant vs adjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer: the evolving role of radiation

A major challenge with pancreatic cancer management is in the discrimination of clearly resectable tumors from those that would likely be accompanied by a positive resection margin if upfront surgery was attempted. The standard of care for clearly resectable pancreatic cancer remains surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, but there is considerable controversy over whether such therapeutic adjuvant strategies should include radiotherapy. Furthermore, in a malignancy with such high rates of distant metastasis, investigators are now exploring the feasibility and outcomes of delivering therapy in the neoadjuvant setting, both for clearly resectable as well as borderline resectable tumors. In this review, we explore the current standard of care of upfront surgery for clearly resectable cancers followed by adjuvant therapy, focusing on the role of radiotherapy. We highlight the difficulties in interpreting a literature fraught with inconsistencies in how resectable vs borderline resectable cancers are defined and treated. Finally, we explore the role of neoadjuvant strategies in the modern era.

A phase 1/2 and biomarker study of preoperative short course chemoradiation with proton beam therapy and capecitabine followed by early surgery for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety, efficacy and biomarkers of short-course proton beam radiation and capecitabine, followed by pancreaticoduodenectomy in a phase 1/2 study in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with radiographically resectable, biopsy-proven PDAC were treated with neoadjuvant short-course (2-week) proton-based radiation with capecitabine, followed by surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary objective was to demonstrate a rate of toxicity grade ≥ 3 of <20%. Exploratory biomarker studies were performed using surgical specimen tissues and peripheral blood.

RESULTS

The phase 2 dose was established at 5 daily doses of 5 GyE. Fifty patients were enrolled, of whom 35 patients were treated in the phase 2 portion. There were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities, and only 2 of 35 patients (4.1%) experienced a grade 3 toxicity event (chest wall pain grade 1, colitis grade 1). Of 48 patients eligible for analysis, 37 underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. Thirty of 37 (81%) had positive nodes. Locoregional failure occurred in 6 of 37 resected patients (16.2%), and distant recurrence occurred in 35 of 48 patients (72.9%). With median follow-up of 38 months, the median progression-free survival for the entire group was 10 months, and overall survival was 17 months. Biomarker studies showed significant associations between worse survival outcomes and the KRAS point mutation change from glycine to aspartic acid at position 12, stromal CXCR7 expression, and circulating biomarkers CEA, CA19-9, and HGF (all, P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study met the primary endpoint by showing a rate of 4.1% grade 3 toxicity for neoadjuvant short-course proton-based chemoradiation. Treatment was associated with favorable local control. In exploratory analyses, KRAS(G12D) status and high CXCR7 expression and circulating CEA, CA19-9, and HGF levels were associated with poor survival.

A comprehensive dosimetric study of pancreatic cancer treatment using three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated radiation therapy (VMAT), and passive-scattering and modulated-scanning proton therapy (PT)

With traditional photon therapy to treat large postoperative pancreatic target volume, it often leads to poor tolerance of the therapy delivered and may contribute to interrupted treatment course. This study was performed to evaluate the potential advantage of using passive-scattering (PS) and modulated-scanning (MS) proton therapy (PT) to reduce normal tissue exposure in postoperative pancreatic cancer treatment. A total of 11 patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer who had been previously treated with PS PT in University of Pennsylvania Roberts Proton Therapy Center from 2010 to 2013 were identified. The clinical target volume (CTV) includes the pancreatic tumor bed as well as the adjacent high-risk nodal areas. Internal (iCTV) was generated from 4-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT), taking into account target motion from breathing cycle. Three-field and 4-field 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), 5-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy, 2-arc volumetric-modulated radiation therapy, and 2-field PS and MS PT were created on the patients' average CT. All the plans delivered 50.4Gy to the planning target volume (PTV). Overall, 98% of PTV was covered by 95% of the prescription dose and 99% of iCTV received 98% prescription dose. The results show that all the proton plans offer significant lower doses to the left kidney (mean and V18Gy), stomach (mean and V20Gy), and cord (maximum dose) compared with all the photon plans, except 3-field 3DCRT in cord maximum dose. In addition, MS PT also provides lower doses to the right kidney (mean and V18Gy), liver (mean dose), total bowel (V20Gy and mean dose), and small bowel (V15Gy absolute volume ratio) compared with all the photon plans and PS PT. The dosimetric advantage of PT points to the possibility of treating tumor bed and comprehensive nodal areas while providing a more tolerable treatment course that could be used for dose escalation and combining with radiosensitizing chemotherapy.

Phase I study of neoadjuvant accelerated short course radiation therapy with photons and capecitabine for resectable pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

In this phase I study, we sought to determine the feasibility and tolerability of neoadjuvant short course radiotherapy (SC-CRT) delivered with photon RT with concurrent capecitabine for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten patients with localized, resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma were enrolled from December 2009 to August 2011. In dose level I, patients received 3 Gy × 10. In dose level 2, patients received 5 Gy × 5 (every other day). In dose level 3, patients received 5 Gy × 5 (consecutive days). Capecitabine was given during weeks 1 and 2. Surgery was performed 1-3 weeks after completion of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

With an intended accrual of 12 patients, the study was closed early due to unexpected intraoperative complications. Compared to the companion phase I proton study, patients treated with photons had increased intraoperative RT fibrosis reported by surgeons (27% vs. 63%). Among those undergoing a Whipple resection, increased RT fibrosis translated to an increased mean OR time of 69 min. Dosimetric comparison revealed significantly increased low dose exposure to organs at risk for patients treated with photon RT.

CONCLUSIONS

This phase I experience evaluating the tolerability of neoadjuvant SC-CRT with photon RT closed early due to unexpected intraoperative complications.

Proton therapy may allow for comprehensive elective nodal coverage for patients receiving neoadjuvant radiotherapy for localized pancreatic head cancers

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy has the potential to improve local disease control for patients with localized pancreatic cancers. Concern about an increased risk of surgical complications due to small bowel and gastric exposure, however, has limited enthusiasm for this approach. Dosimetric studies have demonstrated the potential for proton therapy to reduce intestinal exposure compared with X-ray-based therapy. We sought to determine if neoadjuvant proton therapy allowed for field expansions to cover high-risk nodal stations in addition to the primary tumor.

METHODS

Twelve consecutive patients with nonmetastatic cancers of the pancreatic head underwent proton-based planning for neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Gross tumor volume was contoured using diagnostic computed tomography (CT) scans with oral and intravenous contrast. Four-dimensional planning scans were utilized to define an internal clinical target volume (ICTV). Five-mm planning target volume (PTV) expansions on the ICTV were generated to establish an initial PTV (PTV1). A second PTV was created using the initial PTV but was expanded to include the high-risk nodal targets as defined by the RTOG contouring atlas (PTV2). Optimized proton plans were generated for both PTVs for each patient. All PTVs received a dose of 50.4 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE). Normal-tissue exposures to the small bowel space, stomach, right kidney, left kidney and liver were recorded. Point spinal cord dose was limited to 45 CGE.

RESULTS

Median PTV1 volume was 308.75 cm(3) (range, 133.33-495.61 cm(3)). Median PTV2 volume was 541.75 cm(3) (range, 399.44-691.14 cm(3)). In spite of the substantial enlargement of the PTV when high-risk lymph nodes were included in the treatment volume, normal-tissue exposures (stomach, bowel space, liver, and kidneys) were only minimally increased relative to the exposures seen when only the gross tumor target was treated.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton therapy appears to allow for field expansions to cover high-risk lymph nodes without significantly increasing critical normal-tissue exposure in the neoadjuvant setting.

Proton therapy with concomitant capecitabine for pancreatic and ampullary cancers is associated with a low incidence of gastrointestinal toxicity

BACKGROUND

To review treatment toxicity for patients with pancreatic and ampullary cancer treated with proton therapy at our institution.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From March 2009 through April 2012, 22 patients were treated with proton therapy and concomitant capecitabine (1000 mg PO twice daily) for resected (n = 5); marginally resectable (n = 5); and unresectable/inoperable (n = 12) biopsy-proven pancreatic and ampullary adenocarcinoma. Two patients with unresectable disease were excluded from the analysis for reasons unrelated to treatment. Proton doses ranged from 50.40 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE) to 59.40 CGE.

RESULTS

Median follow-up for all patients was 11 (range 5-36) months. No patient demonstrated any grade 3 toxicity during treatment or during the follow-up period. Grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicities occurred in three patients, consisting of vomiting (n = 3); and diarrhea (n = 2). Median weight loss during treatment was 1.3 kg (1.75% of body weight). Chemotherapy was well-tolerated with a median 99% of the prescribed doses delivered. Percentage weight loss was reduced (p = 0.0390) and grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity was eliminated (p = 0.0009) in patients treated with plans that avoided anterior and left lateral fields which were associated with reduced small bowel and gastric exposure.

DISCUSSION

Proton therapy may allow for significant sparing of the small bowel and stomach and is associated with a low rate of gastrointestinal toxicity. Although long-term follow-up will be needed to assess efficacy, we believe that the favorable toxicity profile associated with proton therapy may allow for radiotherapy dose escalation, chemotherapy intensification, and possibly increased acceptance of preoperative radiotherapy for patients with resectable or marginally resectable disease.

Role of radiation therapy in the management of pancreatic cancer

Local failure remains a major issue for patients with both resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The role of radiation therapy in the management of this disease is less clear and represents an area of some controversy. The objective of this review is to present the rationale for radiation therapy in pancreatic cancer, as well as to discuss the potential limitations and caveats of the currently available studies.

Protons offer reduced normal-tissue exposure for patients receiving postoperative radiotherapy for resected pancreatic head cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the potential role for adjuvant proton-based radiotherapy (PT) for resected pancreatic head cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between June 2008 and November 2008, 8 consecutive patients with resected pancreatic head cancers underwent optimized intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning. IMRT plans used between 10 and 18 fields and delivered 45 Gy to the initial planning target volume (PTV) and a 5.4 Gy boost to a reduced PTV. PTVs were defined according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9704 radiotherapy guidelines. Ninety-five percent of PTVs received 100% of the target dose and 100% of the PTVs received 95% of the target dose. Normal tissue constraints were as follows: right kidney V18 Gy to <70%; left kidney V18 Gy to <30%; small bowel/stomach V20 Gy to <50%, V45 Gy to <15%, V50 Gy to <10%, and V54 Gy to <5%; liver V30 Gy to <60%; and spinal cord maximum to 46 Gy. Optimized two- to three-field three-dimensional conformal proton plans were retrospectively generated on the same patients. The team generating the proton plans was blinded to the dose distributions achieved by the IMRT plans. The IMRT and proton plans were then compared. A Wilcoxon paired t-test was performed to compare various dosimetric points between the two plans for each patient.

RESULTS

All proton plans met all normal tissue constraints and were isoeffective with the corresponding IMRT plans in terms of PTV coverage. The proton plans offered significantly reduced normal-tissue exposure over the IMRT plans with respect to the following: median small bowel V20 Gy, 15.4% with protons versus 47.0% with IMRT (p = 0.0156); median gastric V20 Gy, 2.3% with protons versus 20.0% with IMRT (p = 0.0313); and median right kidney V18 Gy, 27.3% with protons versus 50.5% with IMRT (p = 0.0156).

CONCLUSIONS

By reducing small bowel and stomach exposure, protons have the potential to reduce the acute and late toxicities of postoperative chemoradiation in this setting.

Feasibility of electromagnetic transponder use to monitor inter- and intrafractional motion in locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of electromagnetic transponder implantation in patients with locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. Secondarily, the use of transponders to monitor inter- and intrafractional motion, and the efficacy of breath holding for limiting target motion, were examined.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

During routine screening laparoscopy, 5 patients without metastatic disease were implanted with transponders peri-tumorally. The Calypso System's localization and tracking modes were used to monitor inter- and intrafractional motion, respectively. Intrafractional motion, with and without breath holding, was also examined using Calypso tracking mode.

RESULTS

Transponder implantation was well tolerated in all patients, with minimal migration, aside from 1 patient who expulsed a single transponder. Interfractional motion based on mean shifts from setup using tattoos/orthogonal imaging to transponder based localization from 164 treatments was significant in all dimensions. Mean shift (in millimeters), followed by the standard deviation and p value, were as follows: X-axis: 4.5 mm (1.0, p = 0.01); Y axis: 6.4 mm (1.9, p = 0.03); and Z-axis 3.9 mm (0.6, p = 0.002). Mean intrafractional motion was also found to be significant in all directions: superior, 7.2 mm (0.9, p = 0.01); inferior, 11.9 mm (0.9, p < 0.01); anterior: 4.9 mm (0.5, p = 0.01); posterior, 2.9 mm (0.5, p = 0.02); left, 2.2 mm (0.4, p = 0.02); and right, 3.1 mm (0.6, p = 0.04). Breath holding during treatment significantly decreased tumor motion in all directions.

CONCLUSIONS

Electromagnetic transponder implantation appears to be safe and effective for monitoring inter- and intrafractional motion. Based on these results a larger clinical trial is underway.

Preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgical resection for resectable pancreatic cancer: a review of current results

BACKGROUND

There has been an interest in the interdisciplinary and multimodality approach that combines chemotherapy and radiation therapy as a preoperative treatment for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Literature search of databases (Medline and PubMed) to identify published studies of preoperative chemoradiation for resectable pancreatic cancer (potentially resectable and borderline resectable) was undertaken. Response to treatment and survival outcomes was examined as endpoints of this review.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies; eight phase II studies, and nine observational studies, comprising of 977 patients were reviewed. Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy with radiotherapy was the most common preoperative regimen. Following preoperative treatment, pancreatic surgical resection was performed in 35-100% (median=61%) of patients after a range of 6-32 weeks (median=7 weeks). Rate of pathological response was complete in 5-15% of patients, partial in 33-60% and minimal in 38-42%. The median overall survival ranged from 12 months to 40 months (median=25 months) with a 5-year overall survival rate ranging between 8% and 36% (median=28%). Patients who underwent chemoradiation but did not undergo surgery survived a median period of 7-11 months (median=9 months).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative gemcitabine-based chemoradiation followed by restaging and surgical evaluation for pancreatic resection may identify a sub-population of patients with resectable disease who would benefit the most from surgery. Investigation of this schema of preoperative therapy in a randomized setting of resectable pancreatic cancer is warranted.

Phase I study of preoperative short-course chemoradiation with proton beam therapy and capecitabine for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the head

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety of 1 week of chemoradiation with proton beam therapy and capecitabine followed by early surgery.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fifteen patients with localized resectable, pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the head were enrolled from May 2006 to September 2008. Patients received radiation with proton beam. In dose level 1, patients received 3 GyE × 10 (Week 1, Monday-Friday; Week 2, Monday-Friday). Patients in Dose Levels 2 to 4 received 5 GyE × 5 in progressively shortened schedules: level 2 (Week 1, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; Week 2, Tuesday and Thursday), Level 3 (Week 1, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday; Week 2, Monday), Level 4 (Week 1, Monday through Friday). Capecitabine was given as 825 mg/m(2) b.i.d. Weeks 1 and 2 Monday through Friday for a total of 10 days in all dose levels. Surgery was performed 4 to 6 weeks after completion of chemotherapy for Dose Levels 1 to 3 and then after 1 to 3 weeks for Dose Level 4.

RESULTS

Three patients were treated at Dose Levels 1 to 3 and 6 patients at Dose Level 4, which was selected as the MTD. No dose limiting toxicities were observed. Grade 3 toxicity was noted in 4 patients (pain in 1; stent obstruction or infection in 3). Eleven patients underwent resection. Reasons for no resection were metastatic disease (3 patients) and unresectable tumor (1 patient). Mean postsurgical length of stay was 6 days (range, 5-10 days). No unexpected 30-day postoperative complications, including leak or obstruction, were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative chemoradiation with 1 week of proton beam therapy and capecitabine followed by early surgery is feasible. A Phase II study is underway.

Dose escalation with proton or photon radiation treatment for pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose was to determine the optimal radiation therapy modality (three-dimensional conformal photon-radiation therapy [3DCRT], intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy [IMRT], or passive-scattering proton therapy [PT]) for safe dose escalation (72Gy) in pancreatic tumors in different positions relative to organs at risk (OAR) anatomy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A 3-cm pancreatic tumor was virtually translated every 5mm over 5cm laterally. We generated two plans for each of the three techniques (3DCRT, IMRT, and PT), one that adhered to target coverage objectives and another to meet OAR sparing constraints with best coverage. We evaluated distances between gross tumor volumes and isodoses and compared dose-volume histograms.

RESULTS

IMRT was more conformal in higher gradient dose regions circumferentially, but tumor positions with anteriorly located small bowel benefited more from PT. 3DCRT plans resulted in inadequate target coverage. The V(15Gy) (mean+/-SD) were as follows for the IMRT and PT plans, respectively: stomach, 48%+/-4% vs 5%+/-3% (p<0.0001); and small bowel, 61%+/-8% vs 9%+/-4% (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that the optimal radiation therapy modality for safe dose escalation depends on pancreatic tumor position in relation to OAR anatomy.

Is there a role for advanced radiation therapy technologies in the treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma?

Pancreatic cancer remains a highly challenging problem in oncology. Oncologists continue to search for therapies that are more effective than those currently available to improve on the existing poor treatment results. Persistence of both systemic and local disease causes high rates of morbidity and mortality for patients. Radiation continues to play a role in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, in both the adjuvant and locally advanced settings. Efforts to improve on the results of radiotherapy have led to the use of new and improved technologies. This review discusses a variety of these technological improvements and their current and potential future roles in the clinic.