IMRT Versus Passively Scattered Proton Therapy (PSPT) for Locally Advanced NSCLC -- Impact of Changing Techniques and Technologies Over the Course of a Randomized Trial

Consensus Statement on Proton Therapy in Early-Stage and Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Radiation dose escalation has been shown to improve local control and survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer in some studies, but randomized data have not supported this premise, possibly owing to adverse effects. Because of the physical characteristics of the Bragg peak, proton therapy (PT) delivers minimal exit dose distal to the target volume, resulting in better sparing of normal tissues in comparison to photon-based radiation therapy. This is particularly important for lung cancer given the proximity of the lung, heart, esophagus, major airways, large blood vessels, and spinal cord. However, PT is associated with more uncertainty because of the finite range of the proton beam and motion for thoracic cancers. PT is more costly than traditional photon therapy but may reduce side effects and toxicity-related hospitalization, which has its own associated cost. The cost of PT is decreasing over time because of reduced prices for the building, machine, maintenance, and overhead, as well as newer, shorter treatment programs. PT is improving rapidly as more research is performed particularly with the implementation of 4-dimensional computed tomography-based motion management and intensity modulated PT. Given these controversies, there is much debate in the oncology community about which patients with lung cancer benefit significantly from PT. The Particle Therapy Co-operative Group (PTCOG) Thoracic Subcommittee task group intends to address the issues of PT indications, advantages and limitations, cost-effectiveness, technology improvement, clinical trials, and future research directions. This consensus report can be used to guide clinical practice and indications for PT, insurance approval, and clinical or translational research directions.

Clinical implementation of intensity modulated proton therapy for thoracic malignancies

PURPOSE

Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) can improve dose conformality and better spare normal tissue over passive scattering techniques, but range uncertainties complicate its use, particularly for moving targets. We report our early experience with IMPT for thoracic malignancies in terms of motion analysis and management, plan optimization and robustness, and quality assurance.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Thirty-four consecutive patients with lung/mediastinal cancers received IMPT to a median 66 Gy(relative biological equivalence [RBE]). All patients were able to undergo definitive radiation therapy. IMPT was used when the treating physician judged that IMPT conferred a dosimetric advantage; all patients had minimal tumor motion (<5 mm) and underwent individualized tumor-motion dose-uncertainty analysis and 4-dimensional (4D) computed tomographic (CT)-based treatment simulation and motion analysis. Plan robustness was optimized by using a worst-case scenario method. All patients had 4D CT repeated simulation during treatment.

RESULTS

IMPT produced lower mean lung dose (MLD), lung V5 and V20, heart V40, and esophageal V60 than did IMRT (P<.05) and lower MLD, lung V20, and esophageal V60 than did passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT) (P<.05). D5 to the gross tumor volume and clinical target volume was higher with IMPT than with intensity modulated radiation therapy or PSPT (P<.05). All cases were analyzed for beam-angle-specific motion, water-equivalent thickness, and robustness. Beam angles were chosen to minimize the effect of respiratory motion and avoid previously treated regions, and the maximum deviation from the nominal dose-volume histogram values was kept at <5% for the target dose and met the normal tissue constraints under a worst-case scenario. Patient-specific quality assurance measurements showed that a median 99% (range, 95% to 100%) of the pixels met the 3% dose/3 mm distance criteria for the γ index. Adaptive replanning was used for 9 patients (26.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

IMPT using 4D CT-based planning, motion management, and optimization was implemented successfully and met our quality assurance parameters for treating challenging thoracic cancers.