Comparison of mean radiation dose and dosimetric distribution to tooth-bearing regions of the mandible associated with proton beam radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for ipsilateral head and neck tumor

Dosimetric and NTCP analyses for selecting parotid gland cancer patients for proton therapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

To perform a dosimetric and a normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) comparison between intensity modulated proton therapy and photon volumetric modulated arc therapy in a cohort of patients with parotid gland cancers in a post-operative or radical setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From May 2011 to September 2021, 37 parotid gland cancers patients treated at two institutions were eligible. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients aged ⩾ 18 years, diagnosis of parotid gland cancers candidate for postoperative radiotherapy or definitive radiotherapy, presence of written informed consent for the use of anonymous data for research purposes. Organs at risk (OARs) were retrospectively contoured. Target coverage goal was defined as D95 > 98%. Six NTCP models were selected. NTCP profiles were calculated for each patient using an internally-developed Python script in RayStation TPS. Average differences in NTCP between photon and proton plans were tested for significance with a two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

Seventy-four plans were generated. A lower Dmean to the majority of organs at risk (inner ear, cochlea, oral cavity, pharyngeal constrictor muscles, contralateral parotid and submandibular gland) was obtained with intensity modulated proton therapy vs volumetric modulated arc therapy with statistical significance (p < .05). Ten (27%) patients had a difference in NTCP (photon vs proton plans) greater than 10% for hearing loss and tinnitus: among them, seven qualified for both endpoints, two patients for hearing loss only, and one for tinnitus.

CONCLUSIONS

In the current study, nearly one-third of patients resulted eligible for proton therapy and they were the most likely to benefit in terms of prevention of hearing loss and tinnitus.

Site-specific radiation dosage and implant survival in oral cancer patients: A cohort study

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the radiation dosages (Dmean ) on implant regions to identify the threshold for implant loss in patients with an intraoral malignancy treated with dental implants to support a mandibular denture during ablative surgery before volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data was collected prospectively from 28 patients treated surgically for an intraoral malignancy, followed by postoperative radiotherapy (VMAT) and analyzed retrospectively. Patients received 2 implants in the native mandible during ablative surgery. Implant-specific Dmean values were retrieved from the patients' files. Radiographic bone loss was measured 1 year after implant placement and during the last follow-up appointment. Implant survival was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate logistic regression and Cox-regression analyses were performed to investigate the effect of increasing implant-specific radiation dosages on implant loss.

RESULTS

Five out of 56 placed implants were lost during follow-up (median 36.0 months, IQR 39.0). Radiographically, peri-implant bone loss occurred in implants with a Dmean  > 40 Gy. Implant loss occurred only in implants with a Dmean  > 50 Gy.

CONCLUSION

An implant-specific Dmean higher than 50 Gy is related to more peri-implant bone loss and, eventually, implant loss.

The Role of Dental Practitioners in the Management of Oncology Patients: The Head and Neck Radiation Oncology Patient and the Medical Oncology Patient

This narrative review addresses the role of a dentist in the management of oncology patients, highlighting the oral complications that arise in head and neck radiation oncology patients and medical oncology patients. The prevention and management of these complications are discussed.

Planned dose of intensity modulated proton beam therapy versus volumetric modulated arch therapy to tooth-bearing regions

BACKGROUND

Intensity modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) for head and neck cancer offers dosimetric benefits for the organs at risk when compared to photon-based volumetric modulated arch therapy (VMAT). However, limited data exists about the potential benefits of IMPT for tooth-bearing regions. The aim of this study was to compare the IMPT and VMAT radiation dosimetrics of the tooth-bearing regions in head and neck cancer patients. Also, we aimed to identify prognostic factors for a cumulative radiation dose of ≥40 Gy on the tooth-bearing areas, which is considered the threshold dose for prophylactic dental extractions.

METHODS

A total of 121 head and neck cancer patients were included in this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. We compared the average Dmean values of IMPT versus VMAT of multiple tooth-bearing regions in the same patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed for receiving a cumulative radiation dose of ≥40 Gy to the tooth-bearing regions (primary endpoint) in both VMAT and IMPT.

RESULTS

A lower Dmean was seen after applying IMPT to the tooth-bearing tumour regions (p < 0.001). Regarding VMAT, oral cavity tumours, T3-T4 tumours, molar regions in the mandible, and regions ipsilateral to the tumour were risk factors for receiving a cumulative radiation dose of ≥40 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

IMPT significantly reduces the radiation dose to the tooth-bearing regions.

Osteoradionecrosis of the Jaw Following Proton Radiation Therapy for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Importance

Proton radiation therapy (PRT) has reduced radiation-induced toxic effects, such as mucositis and xerostomia, over conventional photon radiation therapy, leading to significantly improved quality of life in patients with head and neck cancers. However, the prevalence of osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the jaw following PRT in these patients is less clear.

Objective

To report the prevalence and clinical characteristics of ORN in patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer (OOPC) treated with PRT.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This case series reports a single-institution experience (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York) between November 2013 and September 2019 and included 122 radiation therapy-naive patients with OOPC treated with PRT. Data were analyzed from 2013 to 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinical parameters, including sex, age, comorbidities, tumor histology, concurrent chemotherapy, smoking, comorbidities, and preradiation dental evaluation, were obtained from the medical record. Patients with clinical or radiographic signs of ORN were identified and graded using the adopted modified Glanzmann and Grätz grading system. Characteristics of ORN, such as location, clinical presentation, initial stage at diagnosis, etiology, time to diagnosis, management, and clinical outcome at the last follow-up, were also collected.

Results

Of the 122 patients (mean [SD] age, 63 [13] years; 45 [36.9%] women and 77 [63.1%] men) included in this study, 13 (10.6%) developed ORN following PRT during a median (range) follow-up time of 40.6 (<1-101) months. All patients had spontaneous development of ORN. At the time of initial diagnosis, grade 0, grade 1, grade 2, and grade 3 ORN were seen in 2, 1, 9, and 1 patient, respectively. The posterior ipsilateral mandible within the radiation field that received the full planned PRT dose was the most involved ORN site. At a median (range) follow-up of 13.5 (0.2-58.0) months from the time of ORN diagnosis, complete resolution, stable condition, and progression of ORN were seen in 3, 6, and 4 patients, respectively. The 3-year rates of ORN and death in the total cohort were 5.2% and 21.5%, while the 5-year rates of ORN and death were 11.5% and 34.4%, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this case series, the prevalence of ORN following PRT was found to be 10.6%, indicating that ORN remains a clinical challenge even in the era of highly conformal PRT. Clinicians treating patients with OOPC with PRT should be mindful of this complication.

Dental implants in patients with head and neck cancer-A systematic review and meta-analysis of the influence of radiotherapy on implant survival

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare implant survival in irradiated and non-irradiated bone and to investigate potential risk factors for implant therapy in oral cancer patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An extensive search in the electronic databases of the National Library of Medicine was performed. Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA statement. The meta-analysis was performed for studies with a mean follow-up of at least three and five years, respectively.

RESULTS

The systematic review resulted in a mean overall implant survival of 87.8% (34%-100%). The meta-analysis revealed a significantly higher rate of implant failure in irradiated bone compared to non-irradiated bone (p < .00001, OR 1.97, CI [1.63, 2.37]). The studies also showed that implants placed into irradiated grafted bone were more likely to fail than those in irradiated native bone (p < .0001, OR 2.26, CI [1.50, 3.40]).

CONCLUSION

Even though overall implant survival was high, radiotherapy proves to be a significant risk factor for implant loss. Augmentation procedures may also increase the risk of an adverse outcome, especially in combination with radiotherapy.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The treatment of patients receiving radiotherapy of any form requires precise individual planning and a close aftercare. Implants should be placed in local bone rather than in bone grafts, if possible.

Osteoradionecrosis of the jaw: A mini review

Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the jaw is one of the most dreaded complications of head and neck radiation therapy. Despite the evolution of radiation treatment modalities, ORN continues to remain a therapeutic challenge and its etiopathogenesis still remains unclear. It is clinically characterized by exposed necrotic bone within the head and neck radiation field. Over the past years, several studies have reported on the definition, staging, incidence, etiology, and management of this oral complication. In this review, we summarize the literature on ORN and discuss our institutional experience and management strategies that aim to predict and mitigate risk for ORN.

Dental management in head and neck cancers: from intensity-modulated radiotherapy with photons to proton therapy

INTRODUCTION

Despite reduction of xerostomia with intensity-modulated compared to conformal X-ray radiotherapy, radiation-induced dental complications continue to occur. Proton therapy is promising in head and neck cancers to further reduce radiation-induced side-effects, but the optimal dental management has not been defined.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Dental management before proton therapy was assessed compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy based on a bicentric experience, a literature review and illustrative cases.

RESULTS

Preserved teeth frequently contain metallic dental restorations (amalgams, crowns, implants). Metals blur CT images, introducing errors in tumour and organ contour during radiotherapy planning. Due to their physical interactions with matter, protons are more sensitive than photons to tissue composition. The composition of restorative materials is rarely documented during radiotherapy planning, introducing dose errors. Manual artefact recontouring, metal artefact-reduction CT algorithms, dual or multi-energy CT and appropriate dose calculation algorithms insufficiently compensate for contour and dose errors during proton therapy. Physical uncertainties may be associated with lower tumour control probability and more side-effects after proton therapy. Metal-induced errors should be quantified and removal of metal restorations discussed on a case by case basis between dental care specialists, radiation oncologists and physicists. Metallic amalgams can be replaced with water-equivalent materials and crowns temporarily removed depending on rehabilitation potential, dental condition and cost. Implants might contraindicate proton therapy if they are in the proton beam path.

CONCLUSION

Metallic restorations may more severely affect proton than photon radiotherapy quality. Personalized dental care prior to proton therapy requires multidisciplinary assessment of metal-induced errors before choice of conservation/removal of dental metals and optimal radiotherapy.

Clinical Review of Proton Therapy in the Treatment of Unilateral Head and Neck Cancers

Radiotherapy is a common treatment modality in the management of head and neck malignancies. In select clinical scenarios of well-lateralized tumors, radiotherapy can be delivered to the primary tumor or tumor bed and the ipsilateral nodal regions, while intentional irradiation of the contralateral neck is omitted. Proton beam therapy is an advanced radiotherapy modality that allows for the elimination of exit-dose through nontarget tissues such as the oral cavity. This dosimetric advantage is apt for unilateral treatments. By eliminating excess dose to midline and contralateral organs at risk and conforming dose around complex anatomy, proton beam therapy can reduce the risk of iatrogenic toxicities. Currently, there is no level I evidence comparing proton beam therapy to conventional photon radiation modalities for unilateral head and neck cancers. However, a growing body of retrospective and prospective evidence is now available describing the dosimetric and clinical advantages of proton beam therapy. Subsequently, the intent of this clinical review is to summarize the current evidence supporting the use of proton beam therapy in unilateral irradiation of head and neck cancers, including evaluation of disease site-specific evidence, unique challenging clinical scenarios, and ongoing clinical trials.

Early Clinical Outcomes of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy/Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Combination in Comparison with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Alone in Oropharynx Cancer Patients

Simple Summary

Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is expected to reduce toxicity more effectively than intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in treating oropharynx cancer (OPC) patients. Because of long waiting before starting IMPT, authors began IMRT first and then determined whether to continue IMRT or to switch into IMPT at time of adaptive re-plan, based on the rival plan comparison in 148 OPC patients. Early clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared between IMRT alone and IMRT/IMPT combination groups through propensity score matching method. We found that, with comparable oncologic outcomes, more favorable acute toxicity profiles (mucositis and need for analgesic use) were achieved following IMRT/IMPT combination than IMRT alone.

Abstract

Purpose: To report the early clinical outcomes of combining intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in comparison with IMRT alone in treating oropharynx cancer (OPC) patients. Materials and Methods: The medical records of 148 OPC patients who underwent definitive radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent systemic therapy, from January 2016 till December 2019 at Samsung Medical Center, were retrospectively reviewed. During the 5.5 weeks’ RT course, the initial 16 (or 18) fractions were delivered by IMRT in all patients, and the subsequent 12 (or 10) fractions were either by IMRT in 81 patients (IMRT only) or by IMPT in 67 (IMRT/IMPT combination), respectively, based on comparison of adaptive re-plan profiles and availability of equipment. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was done on 76 patients (38 from each group) for comparative analyses. Results: With the median follow-up of 24.7 months, there was no significant difference in overall survival and progression free survival between groups, both before and after PSM. Before PSM, the IMRT/IMPT combination group experienced grade ≥ 3 acute toxicities less frequently: mucositis in 37.0% and 13.4% (p < 0.001); and analgesic quantification algorithm (AQA) in 37.0% and 19.4% (p = 0.019), respectively. The same trends were observed after PSM: mucositis in 39.5% and 15.8% (p = 0.021); and AQA in 47.4% and 21.1% (p = 0.016), respectively. In multivariate logistic regression, grade ≥ 3 mucositis was significantly less frequent in the IMRT/IMPT combination group, both before and after PSM (p = 0.027 and 0.024, respectively). AQA score ≥ 3 was also less frequent in the IMRT/IMPT combination group, both before and after PSM (p = 0.085 and 0.018, respectively). Conclusions: In treating the OPC patients, with comparable early oncologic outcomes, more favorable acute toxicity profiles were achieved following IMRT/IMPT combination than IMRT alone.

Past, present and future of proton therapy for head and neck cancer

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.

Minimal acute toxicity from proton beam therapy for major salivary gland cancer

Introduction: Proton beam therapy (PBT) reduces normal organ dose compared to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients with major salivary gland tumors. It is not known whether this dosimetric advantage is clinically meaningful for reducing acute toxicity.Methods: We evaluated treatment parameters and acute toxicity outcomes of patients with major salivary gland cancers enrolled on the Proton Collaborative Group REG001-09 trial (NCT01255748).Results: One-hundred and five patients with a median age of 61 years were included. The majority had parotid (N = 90) versus submandibular gland (N = 15) tumors. The patients were treated across seven institutions in the United States between 2010 and 2017, most commonly in the postoperative setting (70.5%) although a minority were treated definitively (29.5%). Median PBT dose was 66.5 GyE in 33 fractions; only one patient was prescribed less than 50 GyE. Chemotherapy was given concurrently to 20%. Median follow-up was 14.3 months. Acute grade 2 or higher toxicity included nausea (1.5%), dysgeusia (4.8%), xerostomia (7.6%), mucositis (10.5%) and dysphagia (10.5%).Conclusions: PBT should be strongly considered when ipsilateral radiation therapy is indicated for major salivary gland cancer based on a considerably lower incidence of acute grade 2 or higher toxicity in this analysis compared to historical IMRT outcomes.

Predicting radiation dosimetric distribution in different regions of the jaw in patients receiving radiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy (RT), the main treatment for patients with head and neck cancer, can lead to dental complications.

METHODS

We identified 244 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil treated with RT from 2004 to 2013. For each patient, we contoured the 10 tooth-bearing regions and calculated the radiation dose (gray, Gy) to each region. From this data set, we built two predictive models to determine the expected maximum radiation dose, one for the non-molar regions and another for the molar regions.

RESULTS

For the non-molars, the final model included location, T-classification, and overall stage, with a median absolute prediction error of 7.0 Gy. For the molars, the final model included location, T-classification, overall stage, and treatment year, with a median absolute error of 6.0 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our current model offers a good estimation of the maximum radiation dose delivered to different regions of the jaw; future work will independently validate these models.

Oral rehabilitation of the cancer patient: A formidable challenge

Rehabilitation of oral functions following surgery on the jaws is a goal that is often difficult to achieve. Removable dentures supported by remaining teeth or gum are often unstable and seldom satisfactory. On the other hand, endosseous (dental) implants offer a mechanism to provide stability to the dentures. This review, discusses factors related to the tumor, patient, treatment, and physicians which impact upon the feasibility and success of dental implants in patients with oral cancer.

The prevalence and risk factors associated with osteoradionecrosis of the jaw in oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center experience

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence and correlation of various risk factors [radiation dose, periodontal status, alcohol and smoking] to the development of osteoradionecrosis (ORN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The records of 1023 patients treated with IMRT for oral cavity cancer (OCC) and oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) between 2004 and 2013 were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who developed ORN. Fisher exact tests were used to analyze patient characteristics between ORN patients with OCC and OPC. Paired Wilcoxon tests were used to compare the dose volumes to the ORN and contralateral non-ORN sites. To evaluate an association between ORN and risk factors, a case-control comparison was performed. One to 2 ORN-free patients were selected to match each ORN patient by gender, tumor site and size. General estimation equations models were used to compare the risk factors in ORN cases and matched controls.

RESULTS

44 (4.3%) patients developed ORN during a median follow-up time of 52.5months. In 82% of patients, ORN occurred spontaneously. Patients with OPC are prone to develop ORN earlier compared to patients with OCC (P=0.03). OPC patients received a higher Dmax compared to OCC patients (P=0.01). In the matched case-control analysis the significant risk factors on univariate analysis were poor periodontal status, history of alcohol use and radiation dose (P=0.03, 0.002 and 0.009, respectively) and on multivariate analysis were alcohol use and radiation dose (P=0.004 and 0.026, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In our study, higher radiation dose, poor periodontal status and alcohol use are significantly related to the risk of developing ORN.