1
|
Voon NS, Manan HA, Yahya N. Remote assessment of cognition and quality of life following radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: deep-learning-based predictive models and MRI correlates. J Cancer Surviv 2024; 18:1297-1308. [PMID: 37010777 PMCID: PMC10069366 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-023-01371-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2023] [Accepted: 03/22/2023] [Indexed: 04/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Irradiation of the brain regions from nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) radiotherapy (RT) is frequently unavoidable, which may result in radiation-induced cognitive deficit. Using deep learning (DL), the study aims to develop prediction models in predicting compromised cognition in patients following NPC RT using remote assessments and determine their relation to the quality of life (QoL) and MRI changes. METHODS Seventy patients (20-76 aged) with MRI imaging (pre- and post-RT (6 months-1 year)) and complete cognitive assessments were recruited. Hippocampus, temporal lobes (TLs), and cerebellum were delineated and dosimetry parameters were extracted. Assessments were given post-RT via telephone (Telephone Interview Cognitive Status (TICS), Telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment (T-MoCA), Telephone Mini Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (Tele-MACE), and QLQ-H&N 43). Regression and deep neural network (DNN) models were used to predict post-RT cognition using anatomical and treatment dose features. RESULTS Remote cognitive assessments were inter-correlated (r > 0.9). TLs showed significance in pre- and post-RT volume differences and cognitive deficits, that are correlated with RT-associated volume atrophy and dose distribution. Good classification accuracy based on DNN area under receiver operating curve (AUROC) for cognitive prediction (T-MoCA AUROC = 0.878, TICS AUROC = 0.89, Tele-MACE AUROC = 0.919). CONCLUSION DL-based prediction models assessed using remote assessments can assist in predicting cognitive deficit following NPC RT. Comparable results of remote assessments in assessing cognition suggest its possibility in replacing standard assessments. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS Application of prediction models in individual patient enables tailored interventions to be provided in managing cognitive changes following NPC RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Noor Shatirah Voon
- Diagnostic Imaging and Radiotherapy, Centre for Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Investigative Sciences (CODTIS), Faculty of Health Sciences, National University of Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Aziz, 50300, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- National Cancer Institute, Ministry of Health, Jalan P7, Presint 7, 62250, Putrajaya, Malaysia
| | - Hanani Abdul Manan
- Functional Image Processing Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Cheras, 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Noorazrul Yahya
- Diagnostic Imaging and Radiotherapy, Centre for Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Investigative Sciences (CODTIS), Faculty of Health Sciences, National University of Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Aziz, 50300, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Paganetti H, Simone CB, Bosch WR, Haas-Kogan D, Kirsch DG, Li H, Liang X, Liu W, Mahajan A, Story MD, Taylor PA, Willers H, Xiao Y, Buchsbaum JC. NRG Oncology White Paper on the Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024:S0360-3016(24)02974-2. [PMID: 39059509 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.07.2152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2024] [Revised: 06/17/2024] [Accepted: 07/06/2024] [Indexed: 07/28/2024]
Abstract
This position paper, led by the NRG Oncology Particle Therapy Work Group, focuses on the concept of relative biologic effect (RBE) in clinical proton therapy (PT), with the goal of providing recommendations for the next-generation clinical trials with PT on the best practice of investigating and using RBE, which could deviate from the current standard proton RBE value of 1.1 relative to photons. In part 1, current clinical utilization and practice are reviewed, giving the context and history of RBE. Evidence for variation in RBE is presented along with the concept of linear energy transfer (LET). The intertwined nature of tumor radiobiology, normal tissue constraints, and treatment planning with LET and RBE considerations is then reviewed. Part 2 summarizes current and past clinical data and then suggests the next steps to explore and employ tools for improved dynamic models for RBE. In part 3, approaches and methods for the next generation of prospective clinical trials are explored, with the goal of optimizing RBE to be both more reflective of clinical reality and also deployable in trials to allow clinical validation and interpatient comparisons. These concepts provide the foundation for personalized biologic treatments reviewed in part 4. Finally, we conclude with a summary including short- and long-term scientific focus points for clinical PT. The practicalities and capacity to use RBE in treatment planning are reviewed and considered with more biological data in hand. The intermediate step of LET optimization is summarized and proposed as a potential bridge to the ultimate goal of case-specific RBE planning that can be achieved as a hypothesis-generating tool in near-term proton trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Charles B Simone
- New York Proton Center, New York, New York; Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Walter R Bosch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Daphne Haas-Kogan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - David G Kirsch
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Heng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Wei Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Anita Mahajan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Michael D Story
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | | | - Henning Willers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Ying Xiao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Jeffrey C Buchsbaum
- National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Saito T, Mizumoto M, Oshiro Y, Shimizu S, Li Y, Nakamura M, Hosaka S, Nakai K, Iizumi T, Inaba M, Fukushima H, Suzuki R, Maruo K, Sakurai H. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Particle Beam Therapy versus Photon Radiotherapy for Skull Base Chordoma: TRP-Chordoma 2024. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:2569. [PMID: 39061207 PMCID: PMC11274426 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16142569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2024] [Revised: 06/18/2024] [Accepted: 07/08/2024] [Indexed: 07/28/2024] Open
Abstract
[Objective] The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of particle beam therapy (PT) with photon radiotherapy (RT) for treatment of skull base chordoma. [Methods] A systematic review was conducted for skull base chordoma treated with PT or photon RT reported from 1990 to 2022. Data were extracted for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), late adverse events, age, gender, gross total resection (GTR) rates, tumor volume, total irradiation dose, and treatment modality. Random-effects meta-regression analysis with the treatment modality as an explanatory variable was performed for each outcome to compare the modalities. [Results] A meta-analysis of 30 selected articles found 3- and 5-year OS rates for PT vs. photon RT or combined photon RT/proton beam therapy (PBT) of 90.8% (95% CI: 87.4-93.3%) vs. 89.5% (95% CI: 83.0-93.6%), p = 0.6543; 80.0% (95% CI: 75.7-83.6%) vs. 89.5% (95% CI: 83.0-93.6%), p = 0.6787. The 5-year PFS rates for PT vs. photon RT or photon RT/PBT were 67.8% (95% CI: 56.5-76.7%) vs. 40.2% (95% CI: 31.6-48.7%), p = 0.0004. A random-effects model revealed that the treatment modality (PT vs. photon RT or photon RT/PBT) was not a significant factor for 3-year OS (p = 0.42) and 5-year OS (p = 0.11), but was a significant factor for 5-year PFS (p < 0.0001). The rates of brain necrosis were 8-50% after PT and 0-4% after photon RT or photon RT/PBT. [Conclusion] This study shows that PT results in higher PFS compared to photon RT for skull base chordoma, but that there is a tendency for a higher incidence of brain necrosis with PT. Publication and analysis of further studies is needed to validate these findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takashi Saito
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (T.S.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (K.N.); (T.I.); (H.S.)
| | - Masashi Mizumoto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (T.S.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (K.N.); (T.I.); (H.S.)
| | - Yoshiko Oshiro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8558, Ibaraki, Japan;
| | - Shosei Shimizu
- Department of Pediatric Radiation Therapy Center/Pediatric Proton Beam Therapy Center, Hebei Yizhou Cancer Hospital, Zhuozhou 072750, China;
| | - Yinuo Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (T.S.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (K.N.); (T.I.); (H.S.)
| | - Masatoshi Nakamura
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (T.S.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (K.N.); (T.I.); (H.S.)
| | - Sho Hosaka
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8575, Ibaraki, Japan; (S.H.); (M.I.); (H.F.); (R.S.)
| | - Kei Nakai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (T.S.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (K.N.); (T.I.); (H.S.)
| | - Takashi Iizumi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (T.S.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (K.N.); (T.I.); (H.S.)
| | - Masako Inaba
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8575, Ibaraki, Japan; (S.H.); (M.I.); (H.F.); (R.S.)
| | - Hiroko Fukushima
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8575, Ibaraki, Japan; (S.H.); (M.I.); (H.F.); (R.S.)
- Department of Child Health, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8575, Ibaraki, Japan
| | - Ryoko Suzuki
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8575, Ibaraki, Japan; (S.H.); (M.I.); (H.F.); (R.S.)
- Department of Child Health, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8575, Ibaraki, Japan
| | - Kazushi Maruo
- Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8575, Ibaraki, Japan;
| | - Hideyuki Sakurai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (T.S.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (K.N.); (T.I.); (H.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Holtzman AL, Mohammadi H, Furutani KM, Koffler DM, McGee LA, Lester SC, Gamez ME, Routman DM, Beltran CJ, Liang X. Impact of Relative Biologic Effectiveness for Proton Therapy for Head and Neck and Skull-Base Tumors: A Technical and Clinical Review. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1947. [PMID: 38893068 PMCID: PMC11171304 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16111947] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2024] [Revised: 05/17/2024] [Accepted: 05/18/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy has emerged as a crucial tool in the treatment of head and neck and skull-base cancers, offering advantages over photon therapy in terms of decreasing integral dose and reducing acute and late toxicities, such as dysgeusia, feeding tube dependence, xerostomia, secondary malignancies, and neurocognitive dysfunction. Despite its benefits in dose distribution and biological effectiveness, the application of proton therapy is challenged by uncertainties in its relative biological effectiveness (RBE). Overcoming the challenges related to RBE is key to fully realizing proton therapy's potential, which extends beyond its physical dosimetric properties when compared with photon-based therapies. In this paper, we discuss the clinical significance of RBE within treatment volumes and adjacent serial organs at risk in the management of head and neck and skull-base tumors. We review proton RBE uncertainties and its modeling and explore clinical outcomes. Additionally, we highlight technological advancements and innovations in plan optimization and treatment delivery, including linear energy transfer/RBE optimizations and the development of spot-scanning proton arc therapy. These advancements show promise in harnessing the full capabilities of proton therapy from an academic standpoint, further technological innovations and clinical outcome studies, however, are needed for their integration into routine clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adam L. Holtzman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Homan Mohammadi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Keith M. Furutani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Daniel M. Koffler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Lisa A. McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Scott C. Lester
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Mauricio E. Gamez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - David M. Routman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Chris J. Beltran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Nakamura M, Mizumoto M, Saito T, Shimizu S, Li Y, Oshiro Y, Inaba M, Hosaka S, Fukushima H, Suzuki R, Iizumi T, Nakai K, Maruo K, Sakurai H. A systematic review and meta-analysis of radiotherapy and particle beam therapy for skull base chondrosarcoma: TRP-chondrosarcoma 2024. Front Oncol 2024; 14:1380716. [PMID: 38567162 PMCID: PMC10985235 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1380716] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2024] [Accepted: 03/06/2024] [Indexed: 04/04/2024] Open
Abstract
Introduction Chondrosarcoma is a rare malignant bone tumor. Particle beam therapy (PT) can concentrate doses to targets while reducing adverse events. A meta-analysis based on a literature review was performed to examine the efficacy of PT and photon radiotherapy for skull base chondrosarcoma. Methods The meta-analysis was conducted using 21 articles published from 1990 to 2022. Results After PT, the 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 94.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.0-96.2%) and 93.9% (95% CI: 90.6-96.1%), respectively, and the 3- and 5-year local control rates were 95.4% (95% CI: 92.0-97.4%) and 90.1% (95% CI: 76.8-96.0%), respectively. Meta-regression analysis revealed a significant association of PT with a superior 5-year OS rate compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (p < 0.001). In the studies used in the meta-analysis, the major adverse event of grade 2 or higher was temporal lobe necrosis (incidence 1-18%, median 7%). Conclusion PT for skull base chondrosarcoma had a good outcome and may be a valuable option among radiotherapy modalities. However, high-dose postoperative irradiation of skull base chondrosarcoma can cause adverse events such as temporal lobe necrosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Masashi Mizumoto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Takashi Saito
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Shosei Shimizu
- Department of Pediatric Radiation Therapy Center/Pediatric Proton Beam Therapy Center, Hebei Yizhou Cancer Hospital, Zhuozhou, China
| | - Yinuo Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Yoshiko Oshiro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Masako Inaba
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Sho Hosaka
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Hiroko Fukushima
- Department of Child Health, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Ryoko Suzuki
- Department of Child Health, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Takashi Iizumi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Kei Nakai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Kazushi Maruo
- Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Hideyuki Sakurai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Mattke M, Ohlinger M, Bougatf N, Wolf R, Welzel T, Roeder F, Gerum S, Fussl C, Annon-Eberharter N, Ellerbrock M, Jäkel O, Haberer T, Herfarth K, Uhl M, Debus J, Seidensaal K, Harrabi S. Patterns of Temporal Lobe Reaction and Radiation Necrosis after Particle Radiotherapy in Patients with Skull Base Chordoma and Chondrosarcoma-A Single-Center Experience. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:718. [PMID: 38398109 PMCID: PMC10886807 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16040718] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2023] [Revised: 02/01/2024] [Accepted: 02/02/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The current study aims to evaluate the occurrence of temporal lobe reactions and identify possible risk factors for patients who underwent particle therapy of the skull base. METHODS 244 patients treated for skull base chordoma (n = 144) or chondrosarcoma (n = 100) at the Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT) using a raster scan technique, were analyzed. Follow-up MRI-scans were matched with the initial planning images. Radiogenic reactions were contoured and analyzed based on volume and dose of treatment. RESULTS 51 patients with chordoma (35.4%) and 30 patients (30%) with chondrosarcoma experienced at least one temporal lobe reaction within the follow-up period (median 49 months for chondrosarcoma, 62 months for chordoma). Age, irradiated volume, and dose values were significant risk factors for the development of temporal lobe reactions with the highest significance for the value of DMax-7 being defined as the dose maximum in the temporal lobe minus the 7cc with the highest dose (p = 0.000000000019; OR 1.087). CONCLUSION Temporal lobe reactions are a common side effect after particle therapy of the skull base. We were able to develop a multivariate model, which predicted radiation reactions with a specificity of 99% and a sensitivity of 52.2%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthias Mattke
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburger Landesklinikum (SALK), 5020 Salzburg, Austria; (F.R.); (S.G.); (C.F.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (N.B.); (R.W.); (T.W.); (O.J.); (K.H.); (J.D.); (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (M.E.); (T.H.)
| | - Matteo Ohlinger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (N.B.); (R.W.); (T.W.); (O.J.); (K.H.); (J.D.); (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (M.E.); (T.H.)
| | - Nina Bougatf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (N.B.); (R.W.); (T.W.); (O.J.); (K.H.); (J.D.); (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (M.E.); (T.H.)
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Robert Wolf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (N.B.); (R.W.); (T.W.); (O.J.); (K.H.); (J.D.); (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (M.E.); (T.H.)
| | - Thomas Welzel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (N.B.); (R.W.); (T.W.); (O.J.); (K.H.); (J.D.); (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (M.E.); (T.H.)
| | - Falk Roeder
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburger Landesklinikum (SALK), 5020 Salzburg, Austria; (F.R.); (S.G.); (C.F.)
- Institute of Research and Development of Advanced Radiation Technologies (radART), Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
| | - Sabine Gerum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburger Landesklinikum (SALK), 5020 Salzburg, Austria; (F.R.); (S.G.); (C.F.)
| | - Christoph Fussl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburger Landesklinikum (SALK), 5020 Salzburg, Austria; (F.R.); (S.G.); (C.F.)
| | - Natalee Annon-Eberharter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburger Landesklinikum (SALK), 5020 Salzburg, Austria; (F.R.); (S.G.); (C.F.)
| | - Malte Ellerbrock
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (M.E.); (T.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Oliver Jäkel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (N.B.); (R.W.); (T.W.); (O.J.); (K.H.); (J.D.); (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (M.E.); (T.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Division for Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (M.E.); (T.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Klaus Herfarth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (N.B.); (R.W.); (T.W.); (O.J.); (K.H.); (J.D.); (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (M.E.); (T.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Matthias Uhl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ludwigshafen Hospital, 67063 Ludwigshafen, Germany;
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (N.B.); (R.W.); (T.W.); (O.J.); (K.H.); (J.D.); (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (M.E.); (T.H.)
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Katharina Seidensaal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (N.B.); (R.W.); (T.W.); (O.J.); (K.H.); (J.D.); (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (M.E.); (T.H.)
| | - Semi Harrabi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (N.B.); (R.W.); (T.W.); (O.J.); (K.H.); (J.D.); (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (M.E.); (T.H.)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kuan EC, Wang EW, Adappa ND, Beswick DM, London NR, Su SY, Wang MB, Abuzeid WM, Alexiev B, Alt JA, Antognoni P, Alonso-Basanta M, Batra PS, Bhayani M, Bell D, Bernal-Sprekelsen M, Betz CS, Blay JY, Bleier BS, Bonilla-Velez J, Callejas C, Carrau RL, Casiano RR, Castelnuovo P, Chandra RK, Chatzinakis V, Chen SB, Chiu AG, Choby G, Chowdhury NI, Citardi MJ, Cohen MA, Dagan R, Dalfino G, Dallan I, Dassi CS, de Almeida J, Dei Tos AP, DelGaudio JM, Ebert CS, El-Sayed IH, Eloy JA, Evans JJ, Fang CH, Farrell NF, Ferrari M, Fischbein N, Folbe A, Fokkens WJ, Fox MG, Lund VJ, Gallia GL, Gardner PA, Geltzeiler M, Georgalas C, Getz AE, Govindaraj S, Gray ST, Grayson JW, Gross BA, Grube JG, Guo R, Ha PK, Halderman AA, Hanna EY, Harvey RJ, Hernandez SC, Holtzman AL, Hopkins C, Huang Z, Huang Z, Humphreys IM, Hwang PH, Iloreta AM, Ishii M, Ivan ME, Jafari A, Kennedy DW, Khan M, Kimple AJ, Kingdom TT, Knisely A, Kuo YJ, Lal D, Lamarre ED, Lan MY, Le H, Lechner M, Lee NY, Lee JK, Lee VH, Levine CG, Lin JC, Lin DT, Lobo BC, Locke T, Luong AU, Magliocca KR, Markovic SN, Matnjani G, McKean EL, Meço C, Mendenhall WM, Michel L, Na'ara S, Nicolai P, Nuss DW, Nyquist GG, Oakley GM, Omura K, Orlandi RR, Otori N, Papagiannopoulos P, Patel ZM, Pfister DG, Phan J, Psaltis AJ, Rabinowitz MR, Ramanathan M, Rimmer R, Rosen MR, Sanusi O, Sargi ZB, Schafhausen P, Schlosser RJ, Sedaghat AR, Senior BA, Shrivastava R, Sindwani R, Smith TL, Smith KA, Snyderman CH, Solares CA, Sreenath SB, Stamm A, Stölzel K, Sumer B, Surda P, Tajudeen BA, Thompson LDR, Thorp BD, Tong CCL, Tsang RK, Turner JH, Turri-Zanoni M, Udager AM, van Zele T, VanKoevering K, Welch KC, Wise SK, Witterick IJ, Won TB, Wong SN, Woodworth BA, Wormald PJ, Yao WC, Yeh CF, Zhou B, Palmer JN. International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2024; 14:149-608. [PMID: 37658764 DOI: 10.1002/alr.23262] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2023] [Accepted: 08/24/2023] [Indexed: 09/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Sinonasal neoplasms, whether benign and malignant, pose a significant challenge to clinicians and represent a model area for multidisciplinary collaboration in order to optimize patient care. The International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors (ICSNT) aims to summarize the best available evidence and presents 48 thematic and histopathology-based topics spanning the field. METHODS In accordance with prior International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology documents, ICSNT assigned each topic as an Evidence-Based Review with Recommendations, Evidence-Based Review, and Literature Review based on the level of evidence. An international group of multidisciplinary author teams were assembled for the topic reviews using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses format, and completed sections underwent a thorough and iterative consensus-building process. The final document underwent rigorous synthesis and review prior to publication. RESULTS The ICSNT document consists of four major sections: general principles, benign neoplasms and lesions, malignant neoplasms, and quality of life and surveillance. It covers 48 conceptual and/or histopathology-based topics relevant to sinonasal neoplasms and masses. Topics with a high level of evidence provided specific recommendations, while other areas summarized the current state of evidence. A final section highlights research opportunities and future directions, contributing to advancing knowledge and community intervention. CONCLUSION As an embodiment of the multidisciplinary and collaborative model of care in sinonasal neoplasms and masses, ICSNT was designed as a comprehensive, international, and multidisciplinary collaborative endeavor. Its primary objective is to summarize the existing evidence in the field of sinonasal neoplasms and masses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edward C Kuan
- Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Neurological Surgery, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California, USA
| | - Eric W Wang
- Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Nithin D Adappa
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Daniel M Beswick
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Nyall R London
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
- Sinonasal and Skull Base Tumor Program, Surgical Oncology Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Shirley Y Su
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Marilene B Wang
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Waleed M Abuzeid
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Borislav Alexiev
- Department of Pathology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Jeremiah A Alt
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Paolo Antognoni
- Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Insubria, ASST Sette Laghi Hospital, Varese, Italy
| | - Michelle Alonso-Basanta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Pete S Batra
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Mihir Bhayani
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Diana Bell
- Department of Pathology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California, USA
| | - Manuel Bernal-Sprekelsen
- Otorhinolaryngology Department, Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties Department, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Christian S Betz
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Jean-Yves Blay
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, UNICANCER, Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, Lyon, France
| | - Benjamin S Bleier
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Juliana Bonilla-Velez
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Claudio Callejas
- Department of Otolaryngology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Ricardo L Carrau
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Roy R Casiano
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Paolo Castelnuovo
- Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences, University of Insubria, ASST Sette Laghi Hospital, Varese, Italy
| | - Rakesh K Chandra
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | | | - Simon B Chen
- Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Alexander G Chiu
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| | - Garret Choby
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Naweed I Chowdhury
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Martin J Citardi
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Marc A Cohen
- Department of Surgery, Head and Neck Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Roi Dagan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Gianluca Dalfino
- Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences, University of Insubria, ASST Sette Laghi Hospital, Varese, Italy
| | - Iacopo Dallan
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | | | - John de Almeida
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Angelo P Dei Tos
- Section of Pathology, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - John M DelGaudio
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Charles S Ebert
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Ivan H El-Sayed
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Jean Anderson Eloy
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA
| | - James J Evans
- Department of Neurological Surgery and Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Christina H Fang
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, The University Hospital for Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA
| | - Nyssa F Farrell
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Marco Ferrari
- Section of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Nancy Fischbein
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Adam Folbe
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
| | - Wytske J Fokkens
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Meha G Fox
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | - Gary L Gallia
- Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Paul A Gardner
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Mathew Geltzeiler
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Christos Georgalas
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Nicosia Medical School, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | - Anne E Getz
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Satish Govindaraj
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
| | - Stacey T Gray
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Jessica W Grayson
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Bradley A Gross
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Jordon G Grube
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York, USA
| | - Ruifeng Guo
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Patrick K Ha
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Ashleigh A Halderman
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Ehab Y Hanna
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Richard J Harvey
- Rhinology and Skull Base Research Group, Applied Medical Research Centre, University of South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Stephen C Hernandez
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, LSU Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
| | - Adam L Holtzman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Claire Hopkins
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
| | - Zhigang Huang
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Key Laboratory of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China
| | - Zhenxiao Huang
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Key Laboratory of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China
| | - Ian M Humphreys
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Peter H Hwang
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Alfred M Iloreta
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
| | - Masaru Ishii
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Michael E Ivan
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Aria Jafari
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - David W Kennedy
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Mohemmed Khan
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
| | - Adam J Kimple
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Todd T Kingdom
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Anna Knisely
- Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Ying-Ju Kuo
- Department of Pathology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Devyani Lal
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Eric D Lamarre
- Head and Neck Institute, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Ming-Ying Lan
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Hien Le
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Matt Lechner
- UCL Division of Surgery and Interventional Science and UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - Nancy Y Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jivianne K Lee
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Victor H Lee
- Department of Clinical Oncology, School of Clinical Medicine, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Corinna G Levine
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Jin-Ching Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan
| | - Derrick T Lin
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Brian C Lobo
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| | - Tran Locke
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Amber U Luong
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Kelly R Magliocca
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Svetomir N Markovic
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Gesa Matnjani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Erin L McKean
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Cem Meço
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ankara University Medical School, Ankara, Turkey
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Salzburg Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria
| | - William M Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Loren Michel
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Shorook Na'ara
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Piero Nicolai
- Section of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Daniel W Nuss
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, LSU Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
| | - Gurston G Nyquist
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Gretchen M Oakley
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Kazuhiro Omura
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Richard R Orlandi
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Nobuyoshi Otori
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Peter Papagiannopoulos
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Zara M Patel
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
| | - David G Pfister
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jack Phan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Alkis J Psaltis
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Mindy R Rabinowitz
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Murugappan Ramanathan
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Ryan Rimmer
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Marc R Rosen
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Olabisi Sanusi
- Department of Neurosurgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Zoukaa B Sargi
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Philippe Schafhausen
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Rodney J Schlosser
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
| | - Ahmad R Sedaghat
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - Brent A Senior
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Raj Shrivastava
- Department of Neurosurgery and Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
| | - Raj Sindwani
- Head and Neck Institute, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Timothy L Smith
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Kristine A Smith
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Carl H Snyderman
- Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Neurological Surgery, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California, USA
| | - C Arturo Solares
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Satyan B Sreenath
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Aldo Stamm
- São Paulo ENT Center (COF), Edmundo Vasconcelos Complex, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Katharina Stölzel
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Baran Sumer
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Pavol Surda
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
| | - Bobby A Tajudeen
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | | | - Brian D Thorp
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Charles C L Tong
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Raymond K Tsang
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Justin H Turner
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Mario Turri-Zanoni
- Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences, University of Insubria, ASST Sette Laghi Hospital, Varese, Italy
| | - Aaron M Udager
- Department of Pathology, Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Thibaut van Zele
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Kyle VanKoevering
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Kevin C Welch
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Sarah K Wise
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Ian J Witterick
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Tae-Bin Won
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Stephanie N Wong
- Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Surgery, School of Clinical Medicine, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Bradford A Woodworth
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Peter-John Wormald
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - William C Yao
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Chien-Fu Yeh
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Bing Zhou
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Key Laboratory of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China
| | - James N Palmer
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Lin X, Guo Z, Lin S, Qiu Y. Transcriptional expression of radiation-induced early cortical morphological alterations and its association with radiation necrosis in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother Oncol 2023; 186:109770. [PMID: 37385380 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109770] [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: 12/19/2022] [Revised: 06/19/2023] [Accepted: 06/21/2023] [Indexed: 07/01/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To explore the effects of standard radiotherapy on cortical morphology and its potential transcriptional expression, and to determine the predictive power of cortical morphological measurement at the early stage for radiation necrosis (RN) occurrence within 3 years post-radiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). METHODS 185 NPC patients participated. Pre-treatment and post-radiotherapy (1-3 months) structural MRI were collected longitudinally and prospectively. Multiple cortical morphological indices were compared between pre-treatment and post-radiotherapy. Brain-wide gene expression was used to assess the transcriptional profiles associated with radiation-induced cortical morphological changes. Machine learning was used to construct predictive models for RN with cortical morphological alterations at the early stage. RESULTS Relative to pre-treatment, NPC patients exhibited a widespread reduction in cortical volume (CV) and cortical thickness (CT) post-radiotherapy (p < 0.001). Partial least squares regression analysis revealed that radiotherapy-related cortical atrophy was closely related to transcriptional profiles (p < 0.001), with the most correlated genes enriched in ATPase Na+/K+ transporting alpha-1 and alpha-3 polypeptide and respiratory electron transport chain. Furthermore, models constructed with cortical morphological features at 1-3 months post-radiotherapy had favorable predictive power for RN occurrence in NPC patients within 3-year follow-up, the area under the curve was 0.854 and 0.843 for CV and CT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS NPC patients exhibited widespread cortical atrophy at 1-3 months post-radiotherapy, which was closely correlated with dysfunction of the ATPase Na+/K+ transporting alpha-1 and alpha-3 polypeptide and respiratory electron transport chain. Cortical morphology at 1-3 months post-radiotherapy may serve as an early biomarker for identifying RN.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaoshan Lin
- Department of Radiology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Union Shenzhen Hospital, 89 Taoyuan road, Nanshan district, Shenzhen 518052, China
| | - Zheng Guo
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, International Cancer Center, Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine for Hematological Malignancies, Shenzhen University General Hospital, Shenzhen University Clinical Medical Academy, Shenzhen University Health Science Center, Shenzhen 518055, China
| | - Shiwei Lin
- Department of Radiology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Union Shenzhen Hospital, 89 Taoyuan road, Nanshan district, Shenzhen 518052, China
| | - Yingwei Qiu
- Department of Radiology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Union Shenzhen Hospital, 89 Taoyuan road, Nanshan district, Shenzhen 518052, China.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Carey AR, Page BR, Miller N. Radiation-induced optic neuropathy: a review. Br J Ophthalmol 2022; 107:743-749. [DOI: 10.1136/bjo-2022-322854] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2022] [Accepted: 11/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
Radiation is a commonly used treatment modality for head and neck as well as CNS tumours, both benign and malignant. As newer oncology treatments such as immunotherapies allow for longer survival, complications from radiation therapy are becoming more common. Radiation-induced optic neuropathy is a feared complication due to rapid onset and potential for severe and bilateral vision loss. Careful monitoring of high-risk patients and early recognition are crucial for initiating treatment to prevent severe vision loss due to a narrow therapeutic window. This review discusses presentation, aetiology, recent advances in diagnosis using innovative MRI techniques and best practice treatment options based on the most recent evidence-based medicine.
Collapse
|
10
|
DEGRO practical guideline for central nervous system radiation necrosis part 1: classification and a multistep approach for diagnosis. Strahlenther Onkol 2022; 198:873-883. [PMID: 36038669 PMCID: PMC9515024 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-022-01994-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2022] [Accepted: 07/19/2022] [Indexed: 10/31/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The Working Group for Neuro-Oncology of the German Society for Radiation Oncology in cooperation with members of the Neuro-Oncology Working Group of the German Cancer Society aimed to define a practical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of radiation-induced necrosis (RN) of the central nervous system (CNS). METHODS Panel members of the DEGRO working group invited experts, participated in a series of conferences, supplemented their clinical experience, performed a literature review, and formulated recommendations for medical treatment of RN including bevacizumab in clinical routine. CONCLUSION Diagnosis and treatment of RN requires multidisciplinary structures of care and defined processes. Diagnosis has to be made on an interdisciplinary level with the joint knowledge of a neuroradiologist, radiation oncologist, neurosurgeon, neuropathologist, and neuro-oncologist. A multistep approach as an opportunity to review as many characteristics as possible to improve diagnostic confidence is recommended. Additional information about radiotherapy (RT) techniques is crucial for the diagnosis of RN. Misdiagnosis of untreated and progressive RN can lead to severe neurological deficits. In this practice guideline, we propose a detailed nomenclature of treatment-related changes and a multistep approach for their diagnosis.
Collapse
|
11
|
Lin X, Li Z, Chen S, Yang Y, He H, Lv X, Qiu Y. Divergent white matter changes in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma post-radiotherapy with different outcomes: a potential biomarker for prediction of radiation necrosis. Eur Radiol 2022; 32:7036-7047. [PMID: 35687134 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08907-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2021] [Revised: 05/17/2022] [Accepted: 05/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To investigate the effects of standard radiotherapy on temporal white matter (WM) and its relationship with radiation necrosis (RN) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), and to determine the predictive value of WM volume alterations at the early stage for RN occurrence at the late-delay stage. METHODS Seventy-four treatment-naive NPC patients treated with standard radiotherapy were longitudinally followed up for 36 months. Structural MRIs were collected at multiple time points during the first year post-radiotherapy. Longitudinal structural images were processed using FreeSurfer. Linear mixed models were used to delineate divergent trajectories of temporal WM changes between patients who developed RN and who did not. Four machine learning methods were used to construct predictive models for RN with temporal WM volume alterations at early-stage. RESULTS The superior temporal gyrus (STG) had divergent atrophy trajectories in NPC patients with different outcomes (RN vs. NRN) post-radiotherapy. Patients with RN showed more rapid atrophy than those with NRN. A predictive model constructed with temporal WM volume alterations at early-stage post-radiotherapy had good performance for RN; the areas under the curve (AUC) were 0.879 and 0.806 at 1-3 months and 6 months post-radiotherapy, respectively. Moreover, the predictive model constructed with absolute temporal volume at 1-3 months post-radiotherapy also presented good performance; the AUC was 0.842, which was verified by another independent dataset (AUC = 0.773). CONCLUSIONS NPC patients with RN had more sharp atrophy in the STG than those with NRN. Temporal WM volume at early-stage post-radiotherapy may serve as an in vivo biomarker to identify and predict RN occurrence. KEY POINTS • The STG had divergent atrophy trajectories in NPC patients with different outcomes (RN vs. NRN) post-radiotherapy. • Although both groups exhibited time-dependent atrophy in the STG, the patients with RN showed a more rapid volume decrease than those with NRN. • Temporal WM volume alteration (or absolute volume) at the early stage could predict RN occurrence at the late-delay stage after radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaoshan Lin
- Department of Radiology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Union Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, 518052, China
| | - Zhipeng Li
- Department of Medical Imaging, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Shengli Chen
- Department of Radiology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Union Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, 518052, China
| | - Yadi Yang
- Department of Medical Imaging, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Haoqiang He
- Department of Medical Imaging, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Xiaofei Lv
- Department of Medical Imaging, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
| | - Yingwei Qiu
- Department of Radiology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Union Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, 518052, China.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Nishio N, Okazaki Y, Wada A, Tsuzuki H, Kambe M, Fujimoto Y, Sone M. Management of bilateral locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the external auditory canal. ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA CASE REPORTS 2022. [DOI: 10.1080/23772484.2022.2033122] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Naoki Nishio
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Yuriko Okazaki
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Akihisa Wada
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Hidenori Tsuzuki
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Miki Kambe
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Yasushi Fujimoto
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Aichi Medical University, Nagakute, Japan
| | - Michihiko Sone
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Schröder C, Köthe A, De Angelis C, Basler L, Fattori G, Safai S, Leiser D, Lomax AJ, Weber DC. NTCP modelling for high-grade temporal radionecrosis in a large cohort of patients receiving pencil beam scanning proton therapy for skull base and head and neck tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 113:448-455. [PMID: 35124132 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.01.047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2021] [Revised: 01/04/2022] [Accepted: 01/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES To develop a normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model including clinical and dosimetric parameters for high-grade temporal lobe radionecroses (TRN) after pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy (PT). MATERIALS/METHODS Data of 299 patients with skull base and Head and Neck tumors treated with PBS PT with a total dose of ≥60 GyRBE from 05/2004-11/2018 were included. Patients with a ≥ grade (G) 2 TRN (CTCAE v5.0 criteria) were considered as having a high-grade TRN. Nine clinical and 27 dosimetric parameters were considered for structure-wise modelling. After elimination of strongly cross-correlated variables, logistic regression models were generated using penalized LASSO regression. Bootstrapping was performed to assess parameter selection robustness. Model performance was evaluated via cross-correlation by assessing the area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC-ROC) and calibration with a Hosmer-Lemeshow test statistic. RESULTS After a median radiological follow-up of 51.5 months (range, 4-190), 27 (9%) patients developed a ≥ G2 TRN. Eleven patients had bitemporal necrosis, resulting in 38 events in 598 temporal lobes for structure-wise analysis. During Bootstrapping analysis, the highest selection frequency was found for prescription dose (PD), followed by Age, V40Gy[%], Hypertension (HBP) and D1cc[Gy]. During cross validation Age*PD* D1cc[Gy]*HBP was superior in all described test statistics. Full cohort structure wise and patient wise models were built with a maximum AUC-ROC of 0.79 (structure-wise) and 0.76 (patient-wise). CONCLUSION While developing a logistic regression NTCP model to predict ≥ G2 TRN, the best fit was found for the model containing Age, PD, D1cc[Gy] and HBP as risk factors. External validation will be the next step to improve generalizability and potential introduction into clinical routine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Schröder
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland; Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), Winterthur, Switzerland.
| | - A Köthe
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland; ETH, Department of Physics, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - C De Angelis
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - L Basler
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - G Fattori
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - S Safai
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - D Leiser
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - A J Lomax
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland; ETH, Department of Physics, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - D C Weber
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland; University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland; University Hospital of Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Shinya Y, Hasegawa H, Shin M, Kawashima M, Koga T, Hanakita S, Katano A, Sugiyama T, Nozawa Y, Saito N. High Dose Radiosurgery Targeting the Primary Tumor Sites Contributes to Survival in Patients with Skull Base Chordoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 113:582-587. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.02.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2021] [Revised: 02/11/2022] [Accepted: 02/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
15
|
Engeseth GM, Hysing LB, Yepes P, Pettersen HES, Mohan R, Fuller CD, Stokkevåg CH, Wu R, Zhang X, Frank SJ, Gunn GB. Impact of RBE variations on risk estimates of temporal lobe necrosis in patients treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy for head and neck cancer. Acta Oncol 2022; 61:215-222. [PMID: 34534047 PMCID: PMC9969227 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2021.1979248] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Temporal lobe necrosis (TLN) is a potential late effect after radiotherapy for skull base head and neck cancer (HNC). Several photon-derived dose constraints and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models have been proposed, however variation in relative biological effectiveness (RBE) may challenge the applicability of these dose constraints and models in proton therapy. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the influence of RBE variations on risk estimates of TLN after Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for HNC. MATERIAL AND METHODS Seventy-five temporal lobes from 45 previously treated patients were included in the analysis. Sixteen temporal lobes had radiation associated Magnetic Resonance image changes (TLIC) suspected to be early signs of TLN. Fixed (RWDFix) and variable RBE-weighed doses (RWDVar) were calculated using RBE = 1.1 and two RBE models, respectively. RWDFix and RWDVar for temporal lobes were compared using Friedman's test. Based on RWDFix, six NTCP models were fitted and internally validated through bootstrapping. Estimated probabilities from RWDFix and RWDVar were compared using paired Wilcoxon test. Seven dose constraints were evaluated separately for RWDFix and RWDVar by calculating the observed proportion of TLIC in temporal lobes meeting the specific dose constraints. RESULTS RWDVar were significantly higher than RWDFix (p < 0.01). NTCP model performance was good (AUC:0.79-0.84). The median difference in estimated probability between RWDFix and RWDVar ranged between 5.3% and 20.0% points (p < 0.01), with V60GyRBE and DMax at the smallest and largest differences, respectively. The proportion of TLIC was higher for RWDFix (4.0%-13.1%) versus RWDVar (1.3%-5.3%). For V65GyRBE ≤ 0.03 cc the proportion of TLIC was less than 5% for both RWDFix and RWDVar. CONCLUSION NTCP estimates were significantly influenced by RBE variations. Dmax as model predictor resulted in the largest deviations in risk estimates between RWDFix and RWDVar. V65GyRBE ≤ 0.03 cc was the most consistent dose constraint for RWDFix and RWDVar.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Grete May Engeseth
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, USA,Haukeland University Hospital, Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Bergen, Norway,University of Bergen, Department of Clinical Science, Bergen, Norway,Corresponding author: Grete May Engeseth, , Haukeland University Hospital, Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Postboks 1400, 5021 Bergen
| | - Liv Bolstad Hysing
- Haukeland University Hospital, Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Bergen, Norway,University of Bergen, Department of Physics and Technology, Bergen, Norway
| | - Pablo Yepes
- Rice University, Physics and Astronomy Department, Houston, USA
| | | | - Rahde Mohan
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Physics, Houston, USA
| | - Clifton Dave Fuller
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, USA
| | - Camilla Hanquist Stokkevåg
- Haukeland University Hospital, Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Bergen, Norway,University of Bergen, Department of Physics and Technology, Bergen, Norway
| | - Richard Wu
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, USA
| | - Xiaodong Zhang
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, USA
| | - Steven Jay Frank
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, USA
| | - Gary Brandon Gunn
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Paganetti H. Mechanisms and Review of Clinical Evidence of Variations in Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 112:222-236. [PMID: 34407443 PMCID: PMC8688199 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.08.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2021] [Revised: 07/14/2021] [Accepted: 08/10/2021] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
Proton therapy is increasingly being used as a radiation therapy modality. There is uncertainty about the biological effectiveness of protons relative to photon therapies as it depends on several physical and biological parameters. Radiation oncology currently applies a constant and generic value for the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1, which was chosen conservatively to ensure tumor coverage. The use of a constant value has been challenged particularly when considering normal tissue constraints. Potential variations in RBE have been assessed in several published reviews but have mostly focused on data from clonogenic cell survival experiments with unclear relevance for clinical proton therapy. The goal of this review is to put in vitro findings in relation to clinical observations. Relevant in vivo pathways determining RBE for tumors and normal tissues are outlined, including not only damage to tumor cells and parenchyma but also vascular damage and immune response. Furthermore, the current clinical evidence of varying RBE is reviewed. The assessment can serve as guidance for treatment planning, personalized dose prescriptions, and outcome analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Nangia S, Gaikwad U, Noufal MP, Chilukuri S, Patro K, Nakra V, Panda P, Mathew A, Sharma D, Jalali R. Proton therapy for skull-base adenoid cystic carcinomas: A case series and review of literature. J Cancer Res Ther 2022; 18:629-637. [PMID: 35900533 DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1236_21] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
|
18
|
Feng H, Shan J, Anderson JD, Wong WW, Schild SE, Foote RL, Patrick CL, Tinnon KB, Fatyga M, Bues M, Patel SH, Liu W. Per-voxel constraints to minimize hot spots in linear energy transfer-guided robust optimization for base of skull head and neck cancer patients in IMPT. Med Phys 2021; 49:632-647. [PMID: 34843119 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15384] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2021] [Revised: 11/03/2021] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Due to the employment of quadratic programming using soft constraints to implement dose volume constraints and the "trial-and-error" procedure needed to achieve a clinically acceptable plan, conventional dose volume constraints (upper limit) are not adequately effective in controlling small and isolated hot spots in the dose/linear energy transfer (LET) distribution. Such hot spots can lead to adverse events. In order to mitigate the risk of brain necrosis, one of the most clinically significant adverse events in patients receiving intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for base of skull (BOS) cancer, we propose per-voxel constraints to minimize hot spots in LET-guided robust optimization. METHODS AND MATERIALS Ten BOS cancer patients treated with IMPT were carefully selected by meeting one of the following conditions: (1) diagnosis of brain necrosis during follow-up; and (2) considered high risk for brain necrosis by not meeting dose constraints to the brain. An optimizing structure (BrainOPT) and an evaluating structure (BrainROI) that both contained the aforementioned hot dose regions in the brain were generated for optimization and evaluation, respectively. Two plans were generated for every patient: one using conventional dose-only robust optimization, the other using LET-guided robust optimization. The impact of LET was integrated into the optimization via a term of extra biological dose (xBD). A novel optimization tool of per-voxel constraints to control small and isolated hot spots in either the dose, LET, or combined (dose/LET) distribution was developed and used to minimize dose/LET hot spots of the selected structures. Indices from dose-volume histogram (DVH) and xBD dose-volume histogram (xBDVH) were used in the plan evaluation. A newly developed tool of the dose-LET-volume histogram (DLVH) was also adopted to illustrate the underlying mechanism. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical comparison of the DVH and xBDVH indices between the conventional dose-only and the LET-guided robustly optimized plans. RESULTS Per-voxel constraints effectively and efficiently minimized dose hot spots in both dose-only and LET-guided robust optimization and LET hot spots in LET-guided robust optimization. Compared to the conventional dose-only robust optimization, the LET-guided robust optimization could generate plans with statistically lower xBD hot spots in BrainROI (VxBD,50 Gy[RBE], p = 0.009; VxBD,60 Gy[RBE], p = 0.025; xBD1cc, p = 0.017; xBD2cc, p = 0.022) with comparable dose coverage, dose hot spots in the target, and dose hot spots in BrainROI. DLVH analysis indicated that LET-guided robust optimization could either reduce LET at the same dose level or redistribute high LET from high dose regions to low dose regions. CONCLUSION Per-voxel constraint is a powerful tool to minimize dose/LET hot spots in IMPT. The LET-guided robustly optimized plans outperformed the conventional dose-only robustly optimized plans in terms of xBD hot spots control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hongying Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Jie Shan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Justin D Anderson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - William W Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Steven E Schild
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Robert L Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | | | - Kathryn B Tinnon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Mirek Fatyga
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Martin Bues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Samir H Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Wei Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Park S, Demizu Y, Suga M, Taniguchi S, Tanaka S, Maehata I, Takeda M, Takahashi D, Matsuo Y, Sulaiman NS, Terashima K, Tokumaru S, Furukawa K, Okimoto T. Predicted probabilities of brain injury after carbon ion radiotherapy for head and neck and skull base tumors in long-term survivors. Radiother Oncol 2021; 165:152-158. [PMID: 34718054 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.10.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2020] [Revised: 10/13/2021] [Accepted: 10/18/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE We aimed to determine the risk factors for radiation-induced brain injury (RIBI1) after carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) to predict their probabilities in long-term survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS We evaluated 104 patients with head, neck, and skull base tumors who underwent CIRT in a regimen of 32 fractions and were followed up for at least 24 months. RIBI was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. RESULTS The median follow-up period was 45.5 months; 19 (18.3 %) patients developed grade ≥2 RIBI. The maximal absolute dose covering 5 mL of the brain (D5ml) was the only significant risk factor for grade ≥2 RIBI in the multivariate logistic regression analysis (p = 0.001). The tolerance doses of D5ml for the 5% and 50% probabilities of developing grade ≥2 RIBI were estimated to be 55.4 Gy (relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) and 68.4 Gy (RBE) by a logistic model, respectively. CONCLUSION D5ml was most significantly associated with grade ≥2 RIBI and may enable the prediction of its probability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- SungChul Park
- Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Japan.
| | - Yusuke Demizu
- Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Japan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center Kobe Proton Center, Japan
| | - Masaki Suga
- Department of Radiation Physics, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Japan
| | - Shingo Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Technology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Japan
| | - Shinichi Tanaka
- Department of Radiation Technology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Japan
| | - Itsumi Maehata
- Department of Radiation Technology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Japan
| | - Mikuni Takeda
- Department of Radiation Technology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Japan
| | - Daiki Takahashi
- Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Japan
| | - Yoshiro Matsuo
- Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Japan
| | | | - Kazuki Terashima
- Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Japan
| | - Sunao Tokumaru
- Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Japan
| | - Kyoji Furukawa
- Biostatistics Center, Kurume University Graduate School of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan
| | - Tomoaki Okimoto
- Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Choi JI, Khan AJ, Powell SN, McCormick B, Lozano AJ, Del Rosario G, Mamary J, Liu H, Fox P, Gillespie E, Braunstein LZ, Mah D, Cahlon O. Proton reirradiation for recurrent or new primary breast cancer in the setting of prior breast irradiation. Radiother Oncol 2021; 165:142-151. [PMID: 34688807 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.10.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2021] [Revised: 10/07/2021] [Accepted: 10/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Late local recurrences and second primary breast cancers are increasingly common. Proton beam therapy (PBT) reirradiation (reRT) may allow safer delivery of a second definitive radiotherapy (RT) course. We analyzed outcomes of patients with recurrent or new primary breast cancer who underwent reRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS In an IRB-approved retrospective study, patient/tumor characteristics, treatment parameters, outcomes, and toxicities were collected for all consecutive patients with recurrent or new primary non-metastatic breast cancer previously treated with breast or chest wall RT who underwent PBT reRT. RESULTS Forty-six patients received reRT using uniform (70%) or pencil beam (30%) scanning PBT. Median first RT, reRT, and cumulative doses were 60 Gy (range 45-66 Gy), 50.4 Gy(RBE) (40-66.6 Gy(RBE)), and 110 Gy(RBE) (96.6-169.4 Gy(RBE)), respectively. Median follow-up was 21 months. There were no local or regional recurrences; 17% developed distant recurrence. Two-year DMFS and OS were 92.0% and 93.6%, respectively. Nine of 13 (69.2%) patients who underwent implant or flap reconstruction developed capsular contracture, 3 (23.1%) requiring surgical intervention. One (7.7%) patient developed grade 3 breast pain requiring mastectomy after breast conserving surgery. No acute or late grade 4-5 toxicities were seen. Increased body mass index (BMI) was protective of grade ≥ 2 acute toxicity (OR = 0.84, 95%CI = 0.70-1.00). CONCLUSION In the largest series to date of PBT reRT for breast cancer recurrence or new primary after prior definitive breast or chest wall RT, excellent locoregional control and few high-grade toxicities were encountered. PBT reRT may provide a relatively safe and highly effective salvage option. Additional patients and follow-up are needed to correlate composite normal tissue doses with toxicities and assess long-term outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Isabelle Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA; New York Proton Center, New York, USA.
| | - Atif J Khan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Simon N Powell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Beryl McCormick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | | | | | | | - Haoyang Liu
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, USA
| | - Pamela Fox
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, USA
| | - Erin Gillespie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Lior Z Braunstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Dennis Mah
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, USA
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA; New York Proton Center, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Zhang X. A Review of the Robust Optimization Process and Advances with Monte Carlo in the Proton Therapy Management of Head and Neck Tumors. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:14-24. [PMID: 34285932 PMCID: PMC8270090 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00078.1] [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: 10/19/2020] [Accepted: 01/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
In intensity-modulated proton therapy, robust optimization processes have been developed to manage uncertainties associated with (1) range, (2) setup, (3) anatomic changes, (4) dose calculation, and (5) biological effects. Here we review our experience using a robust optimization technique that directly incorporates range and setup uncertainties into the optimization process to manage those sources of uncertainty. We also review procedures for implementing adaptive planning to manage the anatomic uncertainties. Finally, we share some early experiences regarding the impact of uncertainties in dose calculation and biological effects, along with techniques to manage and potentially reduce these uncertainties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaodong Zhang
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Holtzman AL, Rotondo RL, Rutenberg MS, Indelicato DJ, De Leo A, Rao D, Patel J, Morris CG, Mendenhall WM. Clinical Outcomes Following Dose-Escalated Proton Therapy for Skull-Base Chordoma. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:179-188. [PMID: 34285945 PMCID: PMC8270096 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00066.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2020] [Accepted: 10/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of external-beam proton therapy (PT) on local control and survival in patients with skull-base chordoma. Materials and Methods We reviewed the medical records of patients with skull-base chordoma treated with definitive or adjuvant high-dose PT and updated their follow-up when feasible. We assessed overall survival, disease-specific survival, local control, and freedom from distant metastasis. Radiotherapy toxicities were scored using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Results A total 112 patients were analyzed, of whom 105 (94%) received PT and 7 (6%) received combined proton-photon therapy between 2007 and 2019. Eighty-seven patients (78%) underwent a subtotal resection, 22 (20%) a gross total resection, and 3 (3%) a biopsy alone. The median radiotherapy dose was 73.8 Gy radiobiologic equivalent (GyRBE; range, 69.6-74.4). Ninety patients (80%) had gross disease at radiotherapy and 7 (6%) were treated for locally recurrent disease following surgery. Median follow-up was 4.4 years (range, 0.4-12.6); for living patients, it was 4.6 years (range, 0.4-12.6), and for deceased patients, 4.1 years (range, 1.2-11.2). At 5 years after radiotherapy, the actuarial overall survival, disease-specific survival, local control, and freedom from distant metastasis rates were 78% (n = 87), 83% (n = 93), 74% (n = 83), and 99% (n = 111), respectively. The median time to local progression was 2.4 years (range, 0.8-7). Local control and disease-specific survival by resection status was 95% versus 70% (P = 0.28) and 100% versus 80% (P = 0.06) for gross total, versus subtotal, resection or biopsy alone, respectively. There were no serious acute toxicities (grade ≥ 3) related to radiotherapy. Conclusion High-dose PT alone or after surgical resection for skull-base chordoma reaffirms the favorable 5-year actuarial local control rate compared with conventional techniques with acceptable late-complication–free survival. Outcomes following gross total resection and adjuvant PT were excellent. Further follow-up of this cohort is necessary to better characterize long-term disease control and late toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adam L Holtzman
- Department of Radiation Oncology University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Ronny L Rotondo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - Michael S Rutenberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Daniel J Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Alexandra De Leo
- Department of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Dinesh Rao
- Department of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Jeet Patel
- Department of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Christopher G Morris
- Department of Radiation Oncology University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - William M Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Parzen JS, Li X, Zheng W, Ding X, Kabolizadeh P. Proton Therapy for Skull-Base Chordomas and Chondrosarcomas: Initial Results From the Beaumont Proton Therapy Center. Cureus 2021; 13:e15278. [PMID: 34194880 PMCID: PMC8235689 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.15278] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Background:Skull-base chordomas and chondrosarcomas are rare tumors that arise directly adjacent to important critical structures. Appropriate management consists of maximal safe resection followed by postoperative dose-escalated radiation therapy. Proton beam therapy is often employed in this context to maximize the sparing of organs at risk, such as the brainstem and optic apparatus. Methods: This is a single-institutional experience treating skull-base chordomas and chondrosarcomas with postoperative pencil beam scanning proton therapy. We employed a simultaneous integrated boost to the gross tumor volume (GTV) for increased conformality. Demographic, clinicopathologic, toxicity, and dosimetry information were collected. Toxicity was assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), v. 4.0. Results: Between 2017 and 2020, 13 patients were treated with postoperative proton therapy. There were 10 patients with chordoma (77%) and three with chondrosarcoma (23%). A gross total resection was achieved in six (60%) patients with chordoma and one patient with chondrosarcoma (33%). Nine patients (69%) received postoperative therapy, whereas four (31%) received treatment at recurrence/progression following re-excision. The median dose to the GTV was 72.4 cobalt-Gray equivalents (range, 70.0 to 75.8). The mean GTV was 3.4 cc (range, 0.2-38.7). There were no grade 3 or greater toxicities. One patient developed grade 2 temporal lobe necrosis. At 10.7 months' median follow-up (range, 2.1-30.6), the rates of local control and overall survival were 100%. Conclusions: Proton beam therapy with pencil beam scanning and simultaneous integrated boost to the GTV affords excellent early local control with the suggestion of low morbidity. This method deserves consideration as an optimal method for limiting dose to adjacent organs at risk and delivering clinically effective doses to the treatment volume.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob S Parzen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Proton Therapy Center, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, USA
| | - Xiaoqiang Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Proton Therapy Center, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, USA
| | - Weili Zheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Proton Therapy Center, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, USA
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Proton Therapy Center, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, USA
| | - Peyman Kabolizadeh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Proton Therapy Center, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Weber DC, Bizzocchi N, Bolsi A, Jenkinson MD. Proton Therapy for Intracranial Meningioma for the Treatment of Primary/Recurrent Disease Including Re-Irradiation. Front Oncol 2020; 10:558845. [PMID: 33381447 PMCID: PMC7769250 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.558845] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2020] [Accepted: 10/28/2020] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Meningeal tumors represent approximately 10-25% of primary brain tumors and occur usually in elderly female patients. Most meningiomas are benign (80-85%) and for symptomatic and/or large tumors, surgery, with or without radiation therapy (RT), has been long established as an effective means of local tumor control. RT can be delivered to inoperable lesions or to those with non-benign histology and for Simpson I-III and IV-V resection. RT can be delivered with photons or particles (protons or carbon ions) in stereotactic or non-stereotactic conditions. Particle therapy delivered for these tumors uses the physical properties of charged carbon ions or protons to spare normal brain tissue (i.e. Bragg peak), with or without or a dose-escalation paradigm for non-benign lesions. PT can substantially decrease the dose delivered to the non-target brain tissues, including but not limited to the hippocampi, optic apparatus or cochlea. Only a limited number of meningioma patients have been treated with PT in the adjuvant or recurrent setting, as well as for inoperable lesions with pencil beam scanning and with protons only. Approximately 500 patients with image-defined or WHO grade I meningioma have been treated with protons. The reported outcome, usually 5-year local tumor control, ranges from 85 to 99% (median, 96%). For WHO grade II or III patients, the outcome of only 97 patients has been published, reporting a median tumor local control rate of 52% (range, 38-71.1). Only 24 recurring patients treated previously with photon radiotherapy and re-treated with PT were reported. The clinical outcome of these challenging patients seems interesting, provided that they presented initially with benign tumors, are not in the elderly category and have been treated previously with conventional radiation dose of photons. Overall, the number of meningioma patients treated or-re-irradiated with this treatment modality is small and the clinical evidence level is somewhat low (i.e. 3b-5). In this review, we detail the results of upfront PT delivered to patients with meningioma in the adjuvant setting and for inoperable tumors. The outcome of meningioma patients treated with this radiation modality for recurrent tumors, with or without previous RT, will also be reviewed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Damien C Weber
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, ETH Domain, Villigen, Switzerland.,Radiation Oncology Department, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.,Radiation Oncology Department, University Hospital of Bern, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Nicola Bizzocchi
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, ETH Domain, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Alessandra Bolsi
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, ETH Domain, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Michael D Jenkinson
- Department of Neurosurgery, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.,Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Li X, Lee A, Cohen MA, Sherman EJ, Lee NY. Past, present and future of proton therapy for head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol 2020; 110:104879. [PMID: 32650256 DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104879] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2020] [Accepted: 06/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Proton therapy has recently gained substantial momentum worldwide due to improved accessibility to the technology and sustained interests in its advantage of better tissue sparing compared to traditional photon radiation. Proton therapy in head and neck cancer has a unique advantage given the complex anatomy and proximity of targets to vital organs. As head and neck cancer patients are living longer due to epidemiological shifts and advances in treatment options, long-term toxicity from radiation treatment has become a major concern that may be better mitigated by proton therapy. With increased utilization of proton therapy, new proton centers breaking ground, and as excitement about the technology continue to increase, we aim to comprehensively review the evidence of proton therapy in major subsites within the head and neck, hoping to facilitate a greater understanding of the full risks and benefits of proton therapy for head and neck cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xingzhe Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States
| | - Anna Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States
| | - Marc A Cohen
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States
| | - Eric J Sherman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States
| | - Nancy Y Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Outcomes and patterns of radiation associated brain image changes after proton therapy for head and neck skull base cancers. Radiother Oncol 2020; 151:119-125. [PMID: 32679304 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.07.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2020] [Revised: 07/01/2020] [Accepted: 07/03/2020] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE To characterize patterns and outcomes of brain MR image changes after proton therapy (PT) for skull base head and neck cancer (HNC). MATERIAL AND METHODS Post-treatment MRIs ≥6 months were reviewed for radiation-associated image changes (RAIC) in 127 patients. All patients had received at least a point dose of 40 Gy(RBE) to the brain. The MRIs were rigidly registered to planning CTs and RAIC lesions were contoured both on T1 weighted (post-contrast) and T2 weighted sequences, and dose-volume parameters extracted. Probability of RAIC was calculated using multistate survival analysis. Univariate/multivariate analyses were performed using Cox Regression. Recursive partitioning analysis was used to investigate dose-volume correlates of RAIC development. RESULTS 17.3% developed RAIC. All RAIC events were asymptomatic and occurred in the temporal lobe (14), frontal lobe (6) and cerebellum (2). The median volume of the contrast enhanced RAIC lesion was 0.5 cc at their maximum size. The RAIC resolved or improved in 45.5% of the patients and were stable or progressed in 36.4%. The 3-year actuarial rate of developing RAIC was 14.3%. RAIC was observed in 63% of patients when V67 Gy(RBE) of the brain ≥0.17 cc. CONCLUSION Small RAIC lesions after PT occurred in 17.3% of the patients; the majority in nasopharyngeal or sinonasal cancer. The estimated dose-volume correlations confirm the importance of minimizing focal high doses to brain when achievable.
Collapse
|
27
|
Kitpanit S, Lee A, Pitter KL, Fan D, Chow JC, Neal B, Han Z, Fox P, Sine K, Mah D, Dunn LA, Sherman EJ, Michel L, Ganly I, Wong RJ, Boyle JO, Cohen MA, Singh B, Brennan CW, Gavrilovic IT, Hatzoglou V, O'Malley B, Zakeri K, Yu Y, Chen L, Gelblum DY, Kang JJ, McBride SM, Tsai CJ, Riaz N, Lee NY. Temporal Lobe Necrosis in Head and Neck Cancer Patients after Proton Therapy to the Skull Base. Int J Part Ther 2020; 6:17-28. [PMID: 32582816 PMCID: PMC7302730 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00014.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2020] [Accepted: 04/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To demonstrate temporal lobe necrosis (TLN) rate and clinical/dose-volume factors associated with TLN in radiation-naïve patients with head and neck cancer treated with proton therapy where the field of radiation involved the skull base. MATERIALS AND METHODS Medical records and dosimetric data for radiation-naïve patients with head and neck cancer receiving proton therapy to the skull base were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with <3 months of follow-up, receiving <45 GyRBE or nonconventional fractionation, and/or no follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were excluded. TLN was determined using MRI and graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. Clinical (gender, age, comorbidities, concurrent chemotherapy, smoking, radiation techniques) and dose-volume parameters were analyzed for TLN correlation. The receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC) were performed to determine the cutoff points of significant dose-volume parameters. RESULTS Between 2013 and 2019, 234 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 22.5 months (range = 3.2-69.3). Overall TLN rates of any grade, ≥ grade 2, and ≥ grade 3 were 5.6% (N = 13), 2.1%, and 0.9%, respectively. The estimated 2-year TLN rate was 4.6%, and the 2-year rate of any brain necrosis was 6.8%. The median time to TLN was 20.9 months from proton completion. Absolute volume receiving 40, 50, 60, and 70 GyRBE (absolute volume [aV]); mean and maximum dose received by the temporal lobe; and dose to the 0.5, 1, and 2 cm3 volume receiving the maximum dose (D0.5cm3, D1cm3, and D2cm3, respectively) of the temporal lobe were associated with greater TLN risk while clinical parameters showed no correlation. Among volume parameters, aV50 gave maximum AUC (0.921), and D2cm3 gave the highest AUC (0.935) among dose parameters. The 11-cm3 cutoff value for aV50 and 62 GyRBE for D2cm3 showed maximum specificity and sensitivity. CONCLUSION The estimated 2-year TLN rate was 4.6% with a low rate of toxicities ≥grade 3; aV50 ≤11 cm3, D2cm3 ≤62 GyRBE and other cutoff values are suggested as constraints in proton therapy planning to minimize the risk of any grade TLN. Patients whose temporal lobe(s) unavoidably receive higher doses than these thresholds should be carefully followed with MRI after proton therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarin Kitpanit
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Anna Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ken L. Pitter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Dan Fan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - James C.H. Chow
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Brian Neal
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, NJ, USA
| | - Zhiqiang Han
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, NJ, USA
| | - Pamela Fox
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, NJ, USA
| | - Kevin Sine
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, NJ, USA
| | - Dennis Mah
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, NJ, USA
| | - Lara A. Dunn
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Eric J. Sherman
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Loren Michel
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ian Ganly
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Richard J. Wong
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jay O. Boyle
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Marc A. Cohen
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Bhuvanesh Singh
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Cameron W. Brennan
- Department of Neurosurgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Igor T. Gavrilovic
- Department of Neurology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Vaios Hatzoglou
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Bernard O'Malley
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Kaveh Zakeri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, China
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, NJ, USA
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Neurosurgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Neurology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Yao Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Linda Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Daphna Y. Gelblum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jung Julie Kang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sean M. McBride
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Chiaojung J. Tsai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nadeem Riaz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nancy Y. Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Accelerated hyperfractionated radiochemotherapy with temozolomide is equivalent to normofractionated radiochemotherapy in a retrospective analysis of patients with glioblastoma. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14:227. [PMID: 31831026 PMCID: PMC6909505 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1427-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2019] [Accepted: 11/22/2019] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Current standard of treatment for newly diagnosed patients with glioblastoma (GBM) is surgical resection with adjuvant normofractionated radiotherapy (NFRT) combined with temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy. Hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HFRT) which was known as an option from randomized controlled trials before the temozolomide era has not been compared to the standard therapy in a randomized setting combined with TMZ. Methods Data of 152 patients with newly diagnosed GBM treated from 10/2004 until 7/2018 at a single tertiary care institution were extracted from a clinical database and retrospectively analyzed. Thirty-eight patients treated with NFRT of 60 Gy in 30 fractions (34 with simultaneous and 2 with sequential TMZ) were compared to 114 patients treated with HFRT of 54.0 Gy in 30 fraction of 1.8 Gy twice daily (109 with simultaneous and 3 with sequential TMZ). The association between treatment protocol and other variables with overall survival (OS) was assessed using univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis; the latter was performed using variables selected by the LASSO method. Results Median overall survival (OS) was 20.3 month for the entire cohort. For patients treated with NFRT median OS was 24.4 months compared to 18.5 months in patients treated with HFRT (p = 0.131). In univariable regression analysis the use of dexamethasone during radiotherapy had a significant negative impact on OS in both patient groups, HR 2.21 (95% CI 1.47–3.31, p = 0.0001). In multivariable analysis adjusted for O6-methylguanine-DNA methyl-transferase (MGMT) promotor methylation status, salvage treatment and secondary GBM, the use of dexamethasone was still a negative prognostic factor, HR 1.95 (95% CI 1.21–3.13, p = 0.006). Positive MGMT-methylation status and salvage treatment were highly significant positive prognostic factors. There was no strong association between treatment protocol and OS (p = 0.504). Conclusions Our retrospective analysis supports the hypothesis of equivalence between HFRT and the standard protocol of treatment for GBM. For those patients who are willing to obtain the benefit of shortening the course of radiochemotherapy, HFRT may be an alternative with comparable efficacy although it was not yet tested in a large prospective randomized study against the current standard. The positive influence of salvage therapy and negative impact of concomitant use of corticosteroids should be addressed in future prospective trials. To confirm our results, we plan to perform a pooled analysis with other tertiary clinics in order to achieve better statistical reliability.
Collapse
|
29
|
Niyazi M, Niemierko A, Paganetti H, Söhn M, Schapira E, Goldberg S, Adams J, Kim V, Oh KS, Hwang WL, Lu HM, Belka C, Busse PM, Loeffler JS, Shih HA. Volumetric and actuarial analysis of brain necrosis in proton therapy using a novel mixture cure model. Radiother Oncol 2019; 142:154-161. [PMID: 31563411 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.09.008] [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: 02/13/2019] [Revised: 09/06/2019] [Accepted: 09/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE High-dose fractionated radiotherapy is often necessary to achieve long-term tumor control in several types of tumors involving or within close proximity to the brain. There is limited data to guide on optimal constraints to the adjacent nontarget brain. This investigation explored the significance of the three-dimensional (3D) dose distribution of passive scattering proton therapy to the brain with other clinicopathological factors on the development of symptomatic radiation necrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS All patients with head and neck, skull base, or intracranial tumors who underwent proton therapy (minimum prescription dose of 59.4 Gy(RBE)) with collateral moderate to high dose radiation exposure to the nontarget brain were retrospectively reviewed. A mixture cure model with respect to necrosis-free survival was used to derive estimates for the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model while adjusting for potential confounding factors. RESULTS Of 179 identified patients, 83 patients had intracranial tumors and 96 patients had primary extracranial tumors. The optimal dose measure obtained to describe the occurrence of radiation necrosis was the equivalent uniform dose (EUD) with parameter a = 9. The best-fit parameters of logistic NTCP models revealed D50 = 57.7 Gy for intracranial tumors, D50 = 39.5 Gy for extracranial tumors, and γ50 = 2.5 for both tumor locations. Multivariable analysis revealed EUD and primary tumor location to be the strongest predictors of brain radiation necrosis. CONCLUSION In the current clinical volumetric data analyses with multivariable modelling, EUD was identified as an independent and strong predictor for brain radiation necrosis from proton therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Andrzej Niemierko
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Matthias Söhn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Emily Schapira
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Saveli Goldberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Judith Adams
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Vince Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Kevin S Oh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - William L Hwang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Hsiao-Ming Lu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Claus Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Paul M Busse
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jay S Loeffler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Helen A Shih
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Palma G, Monti S, Conson M, Pacelli R, Cella L. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for modern radiation therapy. Semin Oncol 2019; 46:210-218. [PMID: 31506196 DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2019.07.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2019] [Accepted: 07/31/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Mathematical models of normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) able to robustly predict radiation-induced morbidities (RIM) play an essential role in the identification of a personalized optimal plan, and represent the key to maximizing the benefits of technological advances in radiation therapy (RT). Most modern RT techniques pose, however, new challenges in estimating the risk of RIM. The aim of this report is to schematically review NTCP models in the framework of advanced radiation therapy techniques. Issues relevant to hypofractionated stereotactic body RT and ion beam therapy are critically reviewed. Reirradiation scenarios for new or recurrent malignances and NTCP are also illustrated. A new phenomenological approach to predict RIM is suggested.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giuseppe Palma
- National Research Council, Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging, Napoli, Italy
| | - Serena Monti
- National Research Council, Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging, Napoli, Italy
| | - Manuel Conson
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University School of Medicine, Naples, Italy
| | - Roberto Pacelli
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University School of Medicine, Naples, Italy
| | - Laura Cella
- National Research Council, Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging, Napoli, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Alahmari M, Temel Y. Skull base chordoma treated with proton therapy: A systematic review. Surg Neurol Int 2019; 10:96. [PMID: 31528434 PMCID: PMC6744726 DOI: 10.25259/sni-213-2019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2018] [Accepted: 12/12/2018] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Chordoma located in the skull base is usually a challenging surgical condition. It is often not possible to achieve gross total resection. Residual tumors have been treated with adjuvant focal radiation therapy employing high-energy particles most commonly through proton beam. In this review, we systematically analyzed indications and outcomes of this treatment with respect to local control rates of the lesion and factors determining recurrence of skull base chordomas. In addition, we collected data on treatment-associated radiation-induced side effects. Methods: In line with the PRISMA guidelines, the authors performed a literature search algorithm for relevant articles using three databases: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to evaluate all identified studies published between 1980 and 2018. Results: Our review included 11 studies for analysis (n = 511 patients). The mean age of the study population was 47.3 ± 5.8 years. The mean dose of postsurgical irradiation at the time of initial treatment was 71.1 ± 3.1 Gy. The mean follow-up duration was 45.0 ± 17.5 months. Within this follow-up duration, recurrence occurred in 26.8% of the patients. The mean time to recurrence was 34.5 ± 15.2 months. A significant number of patients experienced side effects varying from Grade 1 (mild dermatitis) to Grade 4 (temporal lobe necrosis and visual disorders). Conclusion: Despite advances in proton therapy, recurrence rates in skull base chordoma remain high. The toxicity of proton therapy may be more prevalent than generally thought. Unfortunately, there is substantial variation in the methods of data reporting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammed Alahmari
- Department of Neurosurgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands, Netherlands.,Department of Radiology, King Fahad Hospital of Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, AL-Khobar, Saudi Arabia
| | - Yasin Temel
- Department of Neurosurgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Simon F, Feuvret L, Bresson D, Guichard JP, El Zein S, Bernat AL, Labidi M, Calugaru V, Froelich S, Herman P, Verillaud B. Surgery and protontherapy in Grade I and II skull base chondrosarcoma: A comparative retrospective study. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0208786. [PMID: 30557382 PMCID: PMC6296545 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208786] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2017] [Accepted: 11/26/2018] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective Skull base chondrosarcoma is a rare tumour usually treated by surgery and proton therapy. However, as mortality rate is very low and treatment complications are frequent, a less aggressive therapeutic strategy could be considered. The objective of this study was to compare the results of surgery only vs surgery and adjuvant proton therapy, in terms of survival and treatment adverse effects, based on a retrospective series. Methods Monocentric retrospective study at a tertiary care centre. All patients treated for a skull base grade I and II chondrosarcoma were included. We collected data concerning surgical and proton therapy treatment and up-to-date follow-up, including Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scores. Results 47 patients (23M/24F) were operated on between 2002 and 2015; mean age at diagnosis was 47 years-old (10–85). Petroclival and anterior skull base locations were found in 34 and 13 patients, respectively. Gross total resection was achieved in 17 cases (36%) and partial in 30 (64%). Adjuvant proton therapy (mean total dose 70 GyRBE,1.8 GyRBE/day) was administered in 23 cases. Overall mean follow-up was 91 months (7–182). Of the patients treated by surgery only, 8 (34%) experienced residual tumour progression (mean delay 51 months) and 5 received second-line proton therapy. Adjuvant proton therapy was associated with a significantly lower rate of relapse (11%; p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in 10-year disease specific survival between patients initially treated with or without adjuvant proton therapy (100% vs 89.8%, p = 0.14). Difference in high-grade toxicity was not statistically significant between patients in both groups (25% (7) vs 11% (5), p = 0.10). The most frequent adverse effect of proton therapy was sensorineural hearing loss (39%). Conclusion Long-term disease specific survival was not significantly lower in patients without adjuvant proton therapy, but they experienced less adverse effects. We believe a surgery only strategy could be discussed, delaying as much as possible proton therapy in cases of relapse. Further prospective studies are needed to validate this more conservative strategy in skull base chondrosarcoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- François Simon
- AP-HP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Paris Diderot University, Paris, France
- * E-mail:
| | - Loïc Feuvret
- AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Department of Radiation Oncology and Pierre et Marie Curie University, Paris, France
- Institut Curie-Centre de protonthérapie d’Orsay, Department of Radiation Oncology and INSERM U61, Centre Universitaire, Orsay, France
| | - Damien Bresson
- AP-HP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Department of Neurosurgery and Paris Diderot University, Paris, France
| | - Jean-Pierre Guichard
- AP-HP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Department of Radiology and Paris Diderot University, Paris, France
| | - Sophie El Zein
- AP-HP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Department of Pathology and Paris Diderot University, Paris, France
| | - Anne-Laure Bernat
- AP-HP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Department of Neurosurgery and Paris Diderot University, Paris, France
| | - Moujahed Labidi
- AP-HP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Department of Neurosurgery and Paris Diderot University, Paris, France
| | - Valentin Calugaru
- Institut Curie-Centre de protonthérapie d’Orsay, Department of Radiation Oncology and INSERM U61, Centre Universitaire, Orsay, France
| | - Sébastien Froelich
- AP-HP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Department of Neurosurgery and Paris Diderot University, Paris, France
| | - Philippe Herman
- AP-HP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Paris Diderot University, Paris, France
| | - Benjamin Verillaud
- AP-HP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Paris Diderot University, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Abstract
The physical characteristics of proton therapy result in steeper dose gradients and superior dose conformality compared to photon therapy. These properties render proton therapy ideal for skull base tumors requiring dose escalation for optimal tumor control, and may also be beneficial for brain tumors as a means of mitigating radiation-related adverse effects. This review summarizes the literature regarding the role of proton therapy compared to photon therapy in the treatment of adult brain and skull base tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Safia K Ahmed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Paul D Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
| | - Robert L Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Radiation dose constraints for organs at risk in neuro-oncology; the European Particle Therapy Network consensus. Radiother Oncol 2018; 128:26-36. [PMID: 29779919 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 104] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2018] [Revised: 04/16/2018] [Accepted: 05/01/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE For unbiased comparison of different radiation modalities and techniques, consensus on delineation of radiation sensitive organs at risk (OARs) and on their dose constraints is warranted. Following the publication of a digital, online atlas for OAR delineation in neuro-oncology by the same group, we assessed the brain OAR-dose constraints in a follow-up study. METHODS We performed a comprehensive search to identify the current papers on OAR dose constraints for normofractionated photon and particle therapy in PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science. Moreover, the included articles' reference lists were cross-checked for potential studies that met the inclusion criteria. Consensus was reached among 20 radiation oncology experts in the field of neuro-oncology. RESULTS For the OARs published in the neuro-oncology literature, we summarized the available literature and recommended dose constraints associated with certain levels of normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) according to the recent ICRU recommendations. For those OARs with lacking or insufficient NTCP data, a proposal for effective and efficient data collection is given. CONCLUSION The use of the European Particle Therapy Network-consensus OAR dose constraints summarized in this article is recommended for the model-based approach comparing photon and proton beam irradiation as well as for prospective clinical trials including novel radiation techniques and/or modalities.
Collapse
|
35
|
Mattke M, Vogt K, Bougatf N, Welzel T, Oelmann-Avendano J, Hauswald H, Jensen A, Ellerbrock M, Jäkel O, Haberer T, Herfarth K, Debus J, Uhl M. High control rates of proton- and carbon-ion-beam treatment with intensity-modulated active raster scanning in 101 patients with skull base chondrosarcoma at the Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center. Cancer 2018; 124:2036-2044. [PMID: 29469932 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31298] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2017] [Revised: 01/07/2018] [Accepted: 01/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The current study compares the results of irradiation with protons and irradiation with carbon ions via a raster scan technique in patients with G1 and G2 skull base chondrosarcomas. METHODS Between 2009 and 2014, a total of 101 patients (40 men and 61 women) with a median age of 44 years (range, 19-77 years) were irradiated with carbon ions (79 patients) or protons (22 patients) via a raster scan technique at the Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center. The median total dose was 60 Gy (relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) at 3 Gy per fraction for carbon ions and 70 Gy (RBE) at 2 Gy per fraction for protons. The median boost planning target volume was 38 cm3 (range, 8-133 cm3 ). Overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) were evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS The median follow-up period was 40 months (range, 0.8-78.1 months). At the start of the irradiation, all patients had residual macroscopic tumors. Five patients (5%) developed a local recurrence during the follow-up. The 1-, 2-, and 4-year LC rates were 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively, for protons and 98.6%, 97.2%, and 90.5%, respectively, for carbon ions. The OS rates during the same periods of time were 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively, for protons and 100%, 98.5%, and 92.9%, respectively, for carbon ions. An age ≤ 44 years was associated with a trend for a better outcome. No toxicity worse than Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3 was observed after treatment. CONCLUSIONS No significant difference between carbon ions and protons in the therapy of skull base chondrosarcoma could be detected in these initial retrospective results. Cancer 2018;124:2036-44. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthias Mattke
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Kira Vogt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Nina Bougatf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Welzel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jan Oelmann-Avendano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Henrik Hauswald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Alexandra Jensen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Malte Ellerbrock
- Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Oliver Jäkel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Klaus Herfarth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Matthias Uhl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Radiation-induced neurocognitive dysfunction in head and neck cancer patients. TUMORI JOURNAL 2017; 103:319-324. [PMID: 28762462 DOI: 10.5301/tj.5000678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/13/2017] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
It might seem odd that a special issue about Gianni Bonadonna would publish a review on radiation-induced neurocognitive dysfunction. Dr. Gianni Bonadonna is considered a pioneer in medical oncology history, mainly due to new and revolutionary treatment approaches proposed in breast cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma. He had an active role in the field of medical oncology, especially through lectures and textbooks. He shared his considerable insight of understanding cancer behavior and evaluating research advances over the years to prevent tumor recurrence and preserve patients from unnecessary toxicity. From a theoretical point of view, this complex vision is valid for all malignancies and can be indirectly shifted to every primary cancer, including head and neck cancer (HNC). During the last decades, multidisciplinary treatment for HNC has improved clinical outcomes but makes acute and late toxicity challenging. This article highlights the main central nervous structures that have a major impact on the development of neurocognitive dysfunction after radiotherapy for HNC. We briefly summarize the specific structure contouring instructions and the dose-volume histogram parameters. The aim is to raise awareness in clinicians in defining normal tissues to optimize radiotherapy regimens.
Collapse
|
37
|
Wang K, Zanation AM, Chera BS. The Role of Radiation Therapy in the Management of Sinonasal and Ventral Skull Base Malignancies. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2017; 50:419-432. [PMID: 28104274 DOI: 10.1016/j.otc.2016.12.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Sinonasal and ventral skull base malignancies are rare tumors that arise in a complex anatomic location juxtaposed with critically important normal tissues. The standard treatment paradigm for most histologies has been surgery followed by postoperative radiation therapy. Because of their propensity to present at an advanced stage and the presence of nearby critical structures, patients are at risk for severe radiation-induced long-term toxicity. Recent advances in radiotherapy technique have improved the therapeutic ratio between tumor control and normal tissue toxicity. This article reviews issues pertinent to the use of radiotherapy in the management of these tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyle Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, 101 Manning Drive, CB #7512, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7512, USA
| | - Adam M Zanation
- Division of Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, 170 Manning Drive, CB #7070, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7070, USA
| | - Bhishamjit S Chera
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, 101 Manning Drive, CB #7512, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7512, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Garber ST, Khoury L, Bell D, Schomer DF, Janku F, McCutcheon IE. Metastatic Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma Mimicking Butterfly Glioblastoma: A Rare Presentation in the Splenium of the Corpus Callosum. World Neurosurg 2016; 95:621.e13-621.e19. [DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.07.111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2016] [Revised: 07/29/2016] [Accepted: 07/30/2016] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
39
|
Vern-Gross TZ, Indelicato DJ, Bradley JA, Rotondo RL. Patterns of Failure in Pediatric Rhabdomyosarcoma After Proton Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 96:1070-1077. [PMID: 27742542 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2016] [Revised: 08/12/2016] [Accepted: 08/22/2016] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report on the patterns of failure in children with rhabdomyosarcoma treated with proton therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between February 2007 and November 2013, 66 children with a median age of 4.1 years (range, 0.6-15.3 years) diagnosed with nonmetastatic rhabdomyosarcoma were treated with proton therapy. Clinical target volume 1 was defined as the prechemotherapy tumor plus a 1-cm anatomically constrained margin. Clinical target volume 2 was defined as the postchemotherapy tumor (or tumor bed) plus a 0.5-cm anatomically constrained margin, further expanded to encompass potential pathways of spread, including soft tissue infiltrated with tumor at diagnosis. RESULTS Of the 66 children, 11 developed locally progressive disease at a median of 16 months (range, 14-32 months), for an actuarial 2-year local control rate of 88%. Among the children who progressed, median age and tumor size at diagnosis were 6.7 years (range, 0.6-16 years) and 6 cm (range, 2-8 cm), respectively. Of the recurrences, 64% and 36% were embryonal and alveolar, respectively. Disease progression was observed in 7 (64%) parameningeal, 2 (18%) head and neck (other), and 2 (18%) bladder/prostate subsites. At diagnosis, 8 of 11 patients who developed a recurrence were Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study stage 3, and all 11 were group III. Of the relapses, 100% (11 of 11) were confirmed as in-field within the composite 95% isodose line. One of the 11 patients (9%) developed a new simultaneous regional nodal recurrence outside of the previously treated radiation field. CONCLUSION Early data suggest that the sharp dosimetric gradient associated with proton therapy is not associated with an increased risk of marginal failure. Routine use of a 0.5- to 1-cm clinical target volume 1/2 margin with highly conformal proton therapy does not compromise local control in children diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma with unfavorable risk features.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tamara Z Vern-Gross
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Daniel J Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida.
| | - Julie A Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Ronny L Rotondo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Influence of Residual Tumor Volume and Radiation Dose Coverage in Outcomes for Clival Chordoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95:304-311. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.08.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2015] [Revised: 07/15/2015] [Accepted: 08/04/2015] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
41
|
Holliday E, Bhattasali O, Kies MS, Hanna E, Garden AS, Rosenthal DI, Morrison WH, Gunn GB, Phan J, Zhu XR, Zhang X, Frank SJ. Postoperative Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma. Int J Part Ther 2016; 2:533-543. [PMID: 31772965 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-15-00032.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2015] [Accepted: 12/07/2015] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Postoperative radiation therapy can improve control for adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) of the head and neck; however, delivering adequate dose to the tumor bed must be balanced with limiting dose to nearby critical organs. Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may help improve the therapeutic ratio, though concerns exist regarding tissue heterogeneity and other sources of uncertainty in several head and neck subsites. We report control and toxicity outcomes for patients with ACC of the head and neck treated at a single institution with postoperative IMPT and robust planning and analysis. Patients and Methods Sixteen patients with head and neck ACC treated with postoperative IMPT were identified. Intensity-modulated proton therapy was delivered by using multifield optimization. Robust planning and analysis were performed. The median dose was 60 (range, 60 to 70) Gy (RBE) (Gy [relative biological effectiveness]). Adjuvant IMPT was given with (N = 12) or without (N = 4) platinum-based chemotherapy. Tumor control outcomes were recorded from the medical record, and acute and chronic toxicities were graded weekly during treatment and upon follow-up per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0 (CTCAE v4). Results Median follow-up is 24.9 (range, 9.2 to 40.2) months. One patient developed local and distant recurrence and subsequently died. The remaining 15 patients are alive without evidence of disease. Four patients experienced acute grade 3 toxicities: dermatitis (N = 3) and oral mucositis (N = 1). One patient developed a chronic grade 4 optic nerve disorder. There were no grade 5 toxicities. Conclusions Intensity-modulated proton therapy is a feasible option for patients with ACC of the head and neck in the postoperative setting. Robust treatment planning and plan analysis can be performed such that uncertainties and tissue heterogeneities do not appear to limit safe and effective IMPT delivery. Safety and efficacy appear comparable to those of other types of radiation therapy, but further follow-up of clinical outcomes is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma Holliday
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Onita Bhattasali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Merrill S Kies
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ehab Hanna
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Adam S Garden
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David I Rosenthal
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - William H Morrison
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - G Brandon Gunn
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jack Phan
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - X Ronald Zhu
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Xiaodong Zhang
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Steven J Frank
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|