1
|
Liu B, Zhou H, Tan L, Siu KTH, Guan XY. Exploring treatment options in cancer: Tumor treatment strategies. Signal Transduct Target Ther 2024; 9:175. [PMID: 39013849 PMCID: PMC11252281 DOI: 10.1038/s41392-024-01856-7] [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: 01/23/2024] [Revised: 04/24/2024] [Accepted: 04/29/2024] [Indexed: 07/18/2024] Open
Abstract
Traditional therapeutic approaches such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy have burdened cancer patients with onerous physical and psychological challenges. Encouragingly, the landscape of tumor treatment has undergone a comprehensive and remarkable transformation. Emerging as fervently pursued modalities are small molecule targeted agents, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), cell-based therapies, and gene therapy. These cutting-edge treatment modalities not only afford personalized and precise tumor targeting, but also provide patients with enhanced therapeutic comfort and the potential to impede disease progression. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that these therapeutic strategies still harbour untapped potential for further advancement. Gaining a comprehensive understanding of the merits and limitations of these treatment modalities holds the promise of offering novel perspectives for clinical practice and foundational research endeavours. In this review, we discussed the different treatment modalities, including small molecule targeted drugs, peptide drugs, antibody drugs, cell therapy, and gene therapy. It will provide a detailed explanation of each method, addressing their status of development, clinical challenges, and potential solutions. The aim is to assist clinicians and researchers in gaining a deeper understanding of these diverse treatment options, enabling them to carry out effective treatment and advance their research more efficiently.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beilei Liu
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
- State Key Laboratory for Liver Research, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Hongyu Zhou
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Licheng Tan
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Kin To Hugo Siu
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Xin-Yuan Guan
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
- State Key Laboratory for Liver Research, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
- Advanced Energy Science and Technology Guangdong Laboratory, Huizhou, China.
- MOE Key Laboratory of Tumor Molecular Biology, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Saba NF, Wong SJ, Nasti T, McCook-Veal AA, McDonald MW, Stokes WA, Anderson AM, Ekpenyong A, Rupji M, Abousaud M, Rudra S, Bates JE, Remick JS, Joshi NP, Woody NM, Awan M, Geiger JL, Shreenivas A, Samsa J, Ward MC, Schmitt NC, Patel MR, Higgins KA, Teng Y, Steuer CE, Shin DM, Liu Y, Ahmed R, Koyfman SA. Intensity-Modulated Reirradiation Therapy With Nivolumab in Recurrent or Second Primary Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial. JAMA Oncol 2024; 10:896-904. [PMID: 38780927 PMCID: PMC11117153 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.1143] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2023] [Accepted: 01/15/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024]
Abstract
Importance Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reirradiation of nonmetastatic recurrent or second primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) results in poor progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Objective To investigate the tolerability, PFS, OS, and patient-reported outcomes with nivolumab (approved standard of care for patients with HNSCC) during and after IMRT reirradiation. Design, Setting, and Participants In this multicenter nonrandomized phase 2 single-arm trial, the treatment outcomes of patients with recurrent or second primary HNSCC who satisfied recursive partitioning analysis class 1 and 2 definitions were evaluated. Between July 11, 2018, and August 12, 2021, 62 patients were consented and screened. Data were evaluated between June and December 2023. Intervention Sixty- to 66-Gy IMRT in 30 to 33 daily fractions over 6 to 6.5 weeks with nivolumab, 240 mg, intravenously 2 weeks prior and every 2 weeks for 5 cycles during IMRT, then nivolumab, 480 mg, intravenously every 4 weeks for a total nivolumab duration of 52 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was PFS. Secondary end points included OS, incidence, and types of toxic effects, including long-term treatment-related toxic effects, patient-reported outcomes, and correlatives of tissue and blood biomarkers. Results A total of 62 patients were screened, and 51 were evaluable (median [range] age was 62 [56-67] years; 42 [82%] were male; 6 [12%] had p16+ disease; 38 [75%] had salvage surgery; and 36 [71%.] had neck dissection). With a median follow-up of 24.5 months (95% CI, 19.0-25.0), the estimated 1-year PFS was 61.7% (95% CI, 49.2%-77.4%), rejecting the null hypothesis of 1-year PFS rate of less than 43.8% with 1-arm log-rank test P = .002 within a 1-year timeframe. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse event (6 [12%]) was lymphopenia with 2 patients (4%) and 1 patient each (2%) exhibiting colitis, diarrhea, myositis, nausea, mucositis, and myasthenia gravis. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Questionnaire quality of life scores remained stable and consistent across all time points. A hypothesis-generating trend favoring worsening PFS and OS in patients with an increase in blood PD1+, KI67+, and CD4+ T cells was observed. Conclusions and Relevance This multicenter nonrandomized phase 2 trial of IMRT reirradiation therapy and nivolumab suggested a promising improvement in PFS over historical controls. The treatment was well tolerated and deserves further evaluation. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03521570.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nabil F. Saba
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Stuart J. Wong
- Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Pleasant Prairie
| | - Tahseen Nasti
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- The Emory Vaccine Center, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Ashley Alesia McCook-Veal
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Mark W. McDonald
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - William A. Stokes
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | | | - Asari Ekpenyong
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Manali Rupji
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Marin Abousaud
- Astellas Pharma Global Development Inc, Northbrook, Illinois
| | - Soumon Rudra
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - James E. Bates
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Jill S. Remick
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Nikhil P. Joshi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Neil M. Woody
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Musaddiq Awan
- Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Pleasant Prairie
| | - Jessica L. Geiger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Aditya Shreenivas
- Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Pleasant Prairie
| | - Julia Samsa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio
| | | | - Nicole C. Schmitt
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- Department of Otolaryngology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Mihir R. Patel
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- Department of Otolaryngology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Kristin A. Higgins
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Yong Teng
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Conor E. Steuer
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Dong M. Shin
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Yuan Liu
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Rafi Ahmed
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- The Emory Vaccine Center, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Shlomo A. Koyfman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Buciuman N, Dasu A, Marcu LG. Dosimetric evaluation of intensity modulated photon versus proton reirradiation of head and neck cancer. Phys Med 2024; 123:103427. [PMID: 38959576 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103427] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2024] [Revised: 06/05/2024] [Accepted: 07/01/2024] [Indexed: 07/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Reirradiation of head and neck cancer (HNC) became more accessible in the last decade, owing to modern irradiation techniques which offer a reduction in treatment related toxicities. The aim of this paper was to comparatively evaluate the dosimetric aspects derived from intensity modulated photon vs. proton treatment planning in reirradiated HNC patients. METHODS Six recurrent HNC patients were enrolled in this retrospective study. For each patient two treatment plans were created: one IMRT/VMAT and one IMPT plan. The prescribed dose for the second irradiation was between 50 and 70 Gy RBE. The study comparatively analyzed the CTV coverage, doses to organs at risk (OARs) and low doses received by the healthy tissue (other than OAR). RESULTS Similar CTV coverage was achieved for photon vs proton plans, with the latter presenting better homogeneity in four cases. Maximum dose to CTV was generally higher for photon plans, with differences ranging from 0.3 to 1.9%. For parotid glands and body, the mean dose was lower for proton plans. A notable reduction of low dose to healthy tissue (other than OARs) could be achieved with protons, with an average of 60% and 64% for D10% and Dmean, respectively. CONCLUSION The dosimetric comparison between photon and proton reirradiation of HNC showed a great need for treatment individualization, concluding that protons should be considered for reirradiation on an individual basis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nikolett Buciuman
- Faculty of Physics, West University of Timisoara, 300223 Timisoara, Romania; OncoHelp Hospital, 300239 Timisoara, Romania
| | - Alexandru Dasu
- The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden; Medical Radiation Science, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Loredana G Marcu
- Faculty of Informatics & Science, University of Oradea, 410087 Oradea, Romania; UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Vosselman N, Kraeima J, Ng Wei Siang K, Raghoebar GM, Witjes MJH, de Visscher SAHJ. Guided placement of zygomatic implants in head and neck cancer patients: implant survival and patient outcomes at 1-3 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2024; 53:600-606. [PMID: 38494409 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2024.03.001] [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: 06/09/2023] [Revised: 02/29/2024] [Accepted: 03/04/2024] [Indexed: 03/19/2024]
Abstract
Zygomatic implants (ZI) are a valuable option for supporting an obturator prosthesis after maxillary resection. This study was performed to assess the clinical outcomes of a digitally validated guided technique for ZI placement, followed by immediate prosthetic obturation. The primary objective was to evaluate implant survival, while the secondary objective was to assess patient-reported quality of life post-rehabilitation. Twelve patients treated for head and neck cancer received a total of 36 ZI after ablative surgery. The mean duration of ZI follow-up was 30.1 months. The survival rate of ZI placed in non-irradiated patients was 100%, while it was 85% in irradiated patients. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using the Liverpool Oral Rehabilitation Questionnaire (LORQv3) and the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (UW-QOL v4). Most patients reported satisfactory outcomes in the oral function domain of the LORQv3 (mean score 17.7 ± 4.5; possible range 12-48, with lower scores indicating better outcomes). Regarding the UW-QOL v4, the swallowing and chewing domains had the highest scores (mean 97.5 ± 8.7 and 95.8 ± 14.4, respectively; maximum possible score of 100). In conclusion, this treatment approach improves function and quality of life after maxillary ablative surgery. However, irradiated patients showed a noticeable trend of higher implant failure, and this was influenced by tumour position and size impacting the radiation dose to the zygomatic bone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Vosselman
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
| | - J Kraeima
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - K Ng Wei Siang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - G M Raghoebar
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - M J H Witjes
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - S A H J de Visscher
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hsieh K, Hotca AE, Dickstein DR, Lehrer EJ, Hsieh C, Gupta V, Sindhu KK, Liu JT, Reed SH, Chhabra A, Misiukiewicz K, Roof S, Kahn MN, Kirke D, Urken M, Posner M, Genden E, Bakst RL. Adjuvant Reirradiation With Proton Therapy in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Adv Radiat Oncol 2024; 9:101418. [PMID: 38778826 PMCID: PMC11110036 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101418] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 05/25/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose For patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), locoregional failure and second primary tumors are common indications for adjuvant reirradiation (re-RT). Given an absence of clear consensus on the role of adjuvant re-RT, we sought to assess histopathologic risk factors of patients with HNSCC and their resulting outcomes after adjuvant re-RT with proton therapy. Methods and Materials We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with HNSCC who underwent salvage surgery at our institution followed by adjuvant re-RT with proton therapy over 1.5 years. All included patients received prior radiation therapy. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate locoregional recurrence-free survival and overall survival. Results The cohort included 22 patients, with disease subsites, including oropharynx, oral cavity, hypopharynx, larynx, and nasopharynx. Depending on adverse pathologic features, adjuvant re-RT to 66 Gy (32% of cohort) or 60 Gy (68%), with (59%) or without (41%) concurrent systemic therapy was administered. The majority (86%) completed re-RT with no reported treatment delay; 3 patients experienced grade ≥3 acute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events toxicity and no patient required enteral feeding tube placement during re-RT. Median follow-up was 21.0 months (IQR, 11.7-25.2 months). Five patients had biopsy-proven disease recurrences a median of 5.9 months (IQR, 3.8-9.7 months) after re-RT. Locoregional recurrence-free survival was 95.2%, 70.2%, 64.8% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. OS was 100%, 79.2%, and 79.2% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Four patients had osteoradionecrosis on imaging a median of 13.2 months (IQR, 8.7-17.4 months) after re-RT, with 2 requiring surgical intervention. Conclusions Adjuvant re-RT for patients with HNSCC was well-tolerated and offered reasonable local control in this high-risk cohort but appears to be associated with a risk of osteoradionecrosis. Additional study and longer follow-up could help define optimal patient management in this patient population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristin Hsieh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Alexandra Elena Hotca
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Daniel R. Dickstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Eric J. Lehrer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Celina Hsieh
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Vishal Gupta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Kunal K. Sindhu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Jerry T. Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Samuel H. Reed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | | | - Krzysztof Misiukiewicz
- Department of Hematology/Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Scott Roof
- Department of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Mohemmed Nazir Kahn
- Department of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Diana Kirke
- Department of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Mark Urken
- Department of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Marshall Posner
- Department of Hematology/Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Eric Genden
- Department of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Richard L. Bakst
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Thwaites DI, Prokopovich DA, Garrett RF, Haworth A, Rosenfeld A, Ahern V. The rationale for a carbon ion radiation therapy facility in Australia. J Med Radiat Sci 2024; 71 Suppl 2:59-76. [PMID: 38061984 PMCID: PMC11011608 DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.744] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2023] [Accepted: 11/17/2023] [Indexed: 04/13/2024] Open
Abstract
Australia has taken a collaborative nationally networked approach to achieve particle therapy capability. This supports the under-construction proton therapy facility in Adelaide, other potential proton centres and an under-evaluation proposal for a hybrid carbon ion and proton centre in western Sydney. A wide-ranging overview is presented of the rationale for carbon ion radiation therapy, applying observations to the case for an Australian facility and to the clinical and research potential from such a national centre.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David I. Thwaites
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of PhysicsUniversity of SydneySydneyNew South WalesAustralia
- Department of Radiation OncologySydney West Radiation Oncology NetworkWestmeadNew South WalesAustralia
- Radiotherapy Research Group, Institute of Medical ResearchSt James's Hospital and University of LeedsLeedsUK
| | | | - Richard F. Garrett
- Australian Nuclear Science and Technology OrganisationLucas HeightsNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Annette Haworth
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of PhysicsUniversity of SydneySydneyNew South WalesAustralia
- Department of Radiation OncologySydney West Radiation Oncology NetworkWestmeadNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Anatoly Rosenfeld
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, School of PhysicsUniversity of WollongongSydneyNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Verity Ahern
- Department of Radiation OncologySydney West Radiation Oncology NetworkWestmeadNew South WalesAustralia
- Westmead Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and HealthUniversity of SydneySydneyNew South WalesAustralia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Huma C, Hawon L, Sarisha J, Erdal T, Kevin C, Valentina KA. Advances in the field of developing biomarkers for re-irradiation: a how-to guide to small, powerful data sets and artificial intelligence. EXPERT REVIEW OF PRECISION MEDICINE AND DRUG DEVELOPMENT 2024; 9:3-16. [PMID: 38550554 PMCID: PMC10972602 DOI: 10.1080/23808993.2024.2325936] [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: 07/20/2023] [Accepted: 02/28/2024] [Indexed: 04/01/2024]
Abstract
Introduction Patient selection remains challenging as the clinical use of re-irradiation (re-RT) increases. Re-RT data is limited to retrospective studies and small prospective single-institution reports, resulting in small, heterogenous data sets. Validated prognostic and predictive biomarkers are derived from large-volume studies with long-term follow-up. This review aims to examine existing re-RT publications and available data sets and discuss strategies using artificial intelligence (AI) to approach small data sets to optimize the use of re-RT data. Methods Re-RT publications were identified where associated public data was present. The existing literature on small data sets to identify biomarkers was also explored. Results Publications with associated public data were identified, with glioma and nasopharyngeal cancers emerging as the most common tumor sites where the use of re-RT was the primary management approach. Existing and emerging AI strategies have been used to approach small data sets including data generation, augmentation, discovery, and transfer learning. Conclusions Further data is needed to generate adaptive frameworks, improve the collection of specimens for molecular analysis, and improve the interpretability of results in re-RT data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chaudhry Huma
- Radiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Bethesda, MD, 20892, United States
| | - Lee Hawon
- Radiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Bethesda, MD, 20892, United States
| | - Jagasia Sarisha
- Radiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Bethesda, MD, 20892, United States
| | - Tasci Erdal
- Radiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Bethesda, MD, 20892, United States
| | - Camphausen Kevin
- Radiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Bethesda, MD, 20892, United States
| | - Krauze Andra Valentina
- Radiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Bethesda, MD, 20892, United States
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Tan M, Chen Y, Du T, Wang Q, Wu X, Zhang Q, Luo H, Liu Z, Sun S, Yang K, Tian J, Wang X. Assessing the Impact of Charged Particle Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2024; 23:15330338241246653. [PMID: 38773763 PMCID: PMC11113043 DOI: 10.1177/15330338241246653] [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: 12/16/2023] [Revised: 02/26/2024] [Accepted: 02/18/2024] [Indexed: 05/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose: Head and neck adenoid cystic carcinoma (HNACC) is a radioresistant tumor. Particle therapy, primarily proton beam therapy and carbon-ion radiation, is a potential radiotherapy treatment for radioresistant malignancies. This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of charged particle radiation therapy on HNACC. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline until December 31, 2022. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary outcomes included treatment-related toxicity. Version 17.0 of STATA was used for all analyses. Results: A total of 14 studies, involving 1297 patients, were included in the analysis. The pooled 5-year OS and PFS rates for primary HNACC were 78% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 66-91%) and 62% (95% CI = 47-77%), respectively. For all patients included, the pooled 2-year and 5-year OS, LC, and PFS rates were as follows: 86.1% (95% CI = 95-100%) and 77% (95% CI = 73-82%), 92% (95% CI = 84-100%) and 73% (95% CI = 61-85%), and 76% (95% CI = 68-84%) and 55% (95% CI = 48-62%), respectively. The rates of grade 3 and above acute toxicity were 22% (95% CI = 13-32%), while late toxicity rates were 8% (95% CI = 3-13%). Conclusions: Particle therapy has the potential to improve treatment outcomes and raise the quality of life for HNACC patients. However, further research and optimization are needed due to the limited availability and cost considerations associated with this treatment modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mingyu Tan
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
| | - Yanliang Chen
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
| | - Tianqi Du
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
| | - Qian Wang
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
| | - Xun Wu
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
| | - Qiuning Zhang
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
- Graduate School, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Hongtao Luo
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
- Graduate School, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Zhiqiang Liu
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
- Graduate School, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Shilong Sun
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
- Graduate School, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Kehu Yang
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Jinhui Tian
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Xiaohu Wang
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
- Graduate School, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Gordon K, Smyk D, Gulidov I, Golubev K, Fatkhudinov T. An Overview of Head and Neck Tumor Reirradiation: What Has Been Achieved So Far? Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4409. [PMID: 37686685 PMCID: PMC10486419 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174409] [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: 08/01/2023] [Revised: 08/27/2023] [Accepted: 08/29/2023] [Indexed: 09/10/2023] Open
Abstract
The recurrence rate of head and neck cancers (HNCs) after initial treatment may reach 70%, and poor prognosis is reported in most cases. Curative options for recurrent HNCs mainly depend on the treatment history and the recurrent tumor localization. Reirradiation for HNCs is effective and has been included in most guidelines. However, the option remains clinically challenging due to high incidence of severe toxicity, especially in cases of quick infield recurrence. Recent technical advances in radiation therapy (RT) provide the means for upgrade in reirradiation protocols. While the majority of hospitals stay focused on conventional and widely accessible modulated RTs, the particle therapy options emerge as tolerable and providing further treatment opportunities for recurrent HNCs. Still, the progress is impeded by high heterogeneity of the data and the lack of large-scale prospective studies. This review aimed to summarize the outcomes of reirradiation for HNCs in the clinical perspective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Konstantin Gordon
- A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (A. Tsyb MRRC), 4, Korolev Street, 249036 Obninsk, Russia; (D.S.); (I.G.); (K.G.)
- Medical Institute, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Miklukho-Maklaya Street 8, 117198 Moscow, Russia;
| | - Daniil Smyk
- A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (A. Tsyb MRRC), 4, Korolev Street, 249036 Obninsk, Russia; (D.S.); (I.G.); (K.G.)
- Medical Institute, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Miklukho-Maklaya Street 8, 117198 Moscow, Russia;
| | - Igor Gulidov
- A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (A. Tsyb MRRC), 4, Korolev Street, 249036 Obninsk, Russia; (D.S.); (I.G.); (K.G.)
| | - Kirill Golubev
- A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (A. Tsyb MRRC), 4, Korolev Street, 249036 Obninsk, Russia; (D.S.); (I.G.); (K.G.)
| | - Timur Fatkhudinov
- Medical Institute, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Miklukho-Maklaya Street 8, 117198 Moscow, Russia;
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Alterio D, Zaffaroni M, Bossi P, Dionisi F, Elicin O, Falzone A, Ferrari A, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Sanguineti G, Szturz P, Volpe S, Scricciolo M. Reirradiation of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: a pragmatic approach, part II: radiation technique and fractionations. LA RADIOLOGIA MEDICA 2023:10.1007/s11547-023-01671-0. [PMID: 37415056 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-023-01671-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2023] [Accepted: 06/25/2023] [Indexed: 07/08/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Reirradiation (reRT) of local recurrent/second primary tumors of the head and neck represents a potential curative treatment for patients not candidate to a salvage surgery. Aim of the present study is to summarize literature data on modern radiation techniques and fractionations used in this setting of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS A narrative review of the literature was conducted on three topics: (1) target volume delineation (2) reRT dose and techniques and (3) ongoing studies. Patients treated with postoperative reRT and palliative intent were not considered for the current analysis. RESULTS Recommendations on the target volume contouring have been reported. 3D-Conformal Radiotherapy, Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy, Stereotactic body Radiotherapy Intraoperative Radiotherapy, Brachytherapy and Charged Particles have been analyzed in terms of indication and fractionation in the field of reRT. Ongoing studies on the topic have been reported for IMRT and Charged Particles. Moreover, according to literature data a stepwise approach has been proposed aiming to provide a useful tool to select patients candidate to a curative reRT in daily clinical practice. Two clinical cases were also provided for its application. CONCLUSION Different radiation techniques and fractionations can be used for a second course of radiotherapy in patients with recurrent/second primary tumor of head and neck region. Tumor characteristics as well as radiobiological considerations should be take into account to define the best reRT approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniela Alterio
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Mattia Zaffaroni
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
| | - Paolo Bossi
- Medical Oncology, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, ASST-Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy
| | - Francesco Dionisi
- Radiotherapy Unit, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Olgun Elicin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Andrea Falzone
- Unità Operativa Multizonale di Radiologia Ospedale di Rovereto e Arco, Azienda Sanitaria per i Servizi Provinciali di Trento, Trento, Italy
| | - Annamaria Ferrari
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Sanguineti
- Radiotherapy Unit, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Petr Szturz
- Department of Oncology, University of Lausanne (UNIL) and Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Stefania Volpe
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Bhattacharyya T, Koto M, Windisch P, Ikawa H, Hagiwara Y, Tsuji H, Adeberg S. Emerging Role of Carbon Ion Radiotherapy in Reirradiation of Recurrent Head and Neck Cancers: What Have We Achieved So Far? Front Oncol 2022; 12:888446. [PMID: 35677171 PMCID: PMC9167994 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.888446] [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: 03/02/2022] [Accepted: 04/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Administering reirradiation for the treatment of recurrent head and neck cancers is extremely challenging. These tumors are hypoxic and radioresistant and require escalated radiation doses for adequate control. The obstacle to delivering this escalated dose of radiation to the target is its proximity to critical organs at risk (OARs) and possible development of consequent severe late toxicities. With the emergence of highly sophisticated technologies, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy have shown promising outcomes. Proton beam radiotherapy has been used for locally recurrent head and neck cancers because of its excellent physical dose distribution, exploring sharp Bragg peak properties with negligible entrance and exit doses. To further improve these results, carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) has been explored in several countries across Europe and Asia because of its favorable physical properties with minimal entrance and exit doses, sharper lateral penumbra, and much higher and variable relative biological efficacy, which cannot be currently achieved with any other form of radiation. Few studies have described the role of CIRT in recurrent head and neck cancers. In this article, we have discussed the different aspects of carbon ions in reirradiation of recurrent head and neck cancers, including European and Asian experiences, different dose schedules, dose constraints of OARs, outcomes, and toxicities, and a brief comparison with proton beam radiotherapy and IMRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tapesh Bhattacharyya
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Medical Centre, Kolkata, India
- QST Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| | - Masashi Koto
- QST Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| | - Paul Windisch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland
| | - Hiroaki Ikawa
- QST Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| | - Yasuhito Hagiwara
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yamagata University Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Tsuji
- QST Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| | - Sebastian Adeberg
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), University Hospital Heidelberg (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), UKHD and DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Ward MC, Koyfman SA, Bakst RL, Margalit DN, Beadle BM, Beitler JJ, Chang SSW, Cooper JS, Galloway TJ, Ridge JA, Robbins JR, Sacco AG, Tsai CJ, Yom SS, Siddiqui F. Retreatment of Recurrent or Second Primary Head and Neck Cancer After Prior Radiation: Executive Summary of the American Radium Society® (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC): Expert Panel on Radiation Oncology - Head and Neck Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 113:759-786. [PMID: 35398456 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.03.034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2021] [Revised: 02/16/2022] [Accepted: 03/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Re-treatment of recurrent or second primary head and neck cancers occurring in a previously irradiated field is complex. Few guidelines exist to support practice. METHODS We performed an updated literature search of peer-reviewed journals in a systematic fashion. Search terms, key questions, and associated clinical case variants were formed by panel consensus. The literature search informed the committee during a blinded vote on the appropriateness of treatment options via the modified Delphi method. RESULTS The final number of citations retained for review was 274. These informed five key questions, which focused on patient selection, adjuvant re-irradiation, definitive re-irradiation, stereotactic body radiation (SBRT), and re-irradiation to treat non-squamous cancer. Results of the consensus voting are presented along with discussion of the most current evidence. CONCLUSIONS This provides updated evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for the re-treatment of recurrent or second primary cancer of the head and neck.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew C Ward
- Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina; Southeast Radiation Oncology Group, Charlotte, North Carolina.
| | | | | | - Danielle N Margalit
- Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Beth M Beadle
- Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | | | | | | | | | - John A Ridge
- Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Jared R Robbins
- University of Arizona College of Medicine Tucson, Tucson, Arizona
| | - Assuntina G Sacco
- University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, California
| | - C Jillian Tsai
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Sue S Yom
- University of California, San Francisco, California
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Takahashi D, Demizu Y, Koto M, Kubo N, Suefuji H, Ikawa H, Ohno T, Shioyama Y, Okimoto T, Tsuji H. Multicenter study of re-irradiation using carbon-ions for head and neck malignancies after photon radiotherapy. Cancer Med 2022; 11:3593-3601. [PMID: 35393701 PMCID: PMC9554451 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4741] [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: 01/31/2022] [Revised: 03/25/2022] [Accepted: 03/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The goal of this multicenter retrospective study of patients with head and neck malignancies was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of carbon‐ion (C‐ion) radiotherapy (RT) after photon RT. Methods We enrolled 56 patients with head and neck malignancies who underwent re‐irradiation (re‐RT) using C‐ions between November 2003 and March 2019, treated previously with photon RT. The tumors at re‐RT were located in the sinonasal cavities (n = 20, 35.7%), skull base (n = 12, 21.4%), and orbit (n = 7, 12.5%). The tumors at the initial RT were located in the sinonasal cavities (n = 13, 23.2%), skull base (n = 9, 16.1%), and orbit (n = 9, 16.1%). The median period between the initial RT and re‐RT was 41 (4–568) months. The most common histology of re‐RT was squamous cell carcinoma (n = 11, 19.6%). The most commonly used protocol was 57.6 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) in 16 fractions (n = 23, 41.1%). Surgery preceded re‐RT in three patients (5.4%). One patient with malignant melanoma received concurrent chemotherapy. Results The 2‐year local control, progression‐free survival, and overall survival rates were 66.5%, 36.9%, and 67.9%, respectively. The median follow‐up time was 28 months. Two patients (3.6%) developed grade ≥ 3 acute toxicities, and 14 (25.0%) developed grade ≥ 3 late toxicities. A single patient had confirmed grade 5 dermatitis with infection. Conclusion Re‐RT using C‐ions for head and neck malignancies after photon RT is an effective treatment with tolerable toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daiki Takahashi
- 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, Kobe, Japan
| | - Masashi Koto
- QST Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum Sciences and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| | - Nobuteru Kubo
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Japan
| | | | - Hiroaki Ikawa
- QST Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum Sciences and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| | - Tatsuya Ohno
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Japan
| | | | - Tomoaki Okimoto
- Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Tsuji
- QST Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum Sciences and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Ding L, Sishc BJ, Polsdofer E, Yordy JS, Facoetti A, Ciocca M, Saha D, Pompos A, Davis AJ, Story MD. Evaluation of the Response of HNSCC Cell Lines to γ-Rays and 12C Ions: Can Radioresistant Tumors Be Identified and Selected for 12C Ion Radiotherapy? Front Oncol 2022; 12:812961. [PMID: 35280731 PMCID: PMC8914432 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.812961] [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: 11/10/2021] [Accepted: 01/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is the sixth most common malignancy worldwide. Thirty percent of patients will experience locoregional recurrence for which median survival is less than 1 year. Factors contributing to treatment failure include inherent resistance to X-rays and chemotherapy, hypoxia, epithelial to mesenchymal transition, and immune suppression. The unique properties of 12C radiotherapy including enhanced cell killing, a decreased oxygen enhancement ratio, generation of complex DNA damage, and the potential to overcome immune suppression make its application well suited to the treatment of HNSCC. We examined the 12C radioresponse of five HNSCC cell lines, whose surviving fraction at 3.5 Gy ranged from average to resistant when compared with a larger panel of 38 cell lines to determine if 12C irradiation can overcome X-ray radioresistance and to identify biomarkers predictive of 12C radioresponse. Cells were irradiated with 12C using a SOBP with an average LET of 80 keV/μm (CNAO: Pavia, Italy). RBE values varied depending upon endpoint used. A 37 gene signature was able to place cells in their respective radiosensitivity cohort with an accuracy of 86%. Radioresistant cells were characterized by an enrichment of genes associated with radioresistance and survival mechanisms including but not limited to G2/M Checkpoint MTORC1, HIF1α, and PI3K/AKT/MTOR signaling. These data were used in conjunction with an in silico-based modeling approach to evaluate tumor control probability after 12C irradiation that compared clinically used treatment schedules with fixed RBE values vs. the RBEs determined for each cell line. Based on the above analysis, we present the framework of a strategy to utilize biological markers to predict which HNSCC patients would benefit the most from 12C radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lianghao Ding
- Univeristy of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Brock J Sishc
- Univeristy of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Elizabeth Polsdofer
- Univeristy of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - John S Yordy
- Univeristy of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Angelica Facoetti
- Medical Physics Unit & Research Department, Foundazione Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica (CNAO), Pavia, Italy
| | - Mario Ciocca
- Medical Physics Unit & Research Department, Foundazione Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica (CNAO), Pavia, Italy
| | - Debabrata Saha
- Univeristy of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Arnold Pompos
- Univeristy of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Anthony J Davis
- Univeristy of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Michael D Story
- Univeristy of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX, United States
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Woods KE, Ma TM, Cook KA, Morris ED, Gao Y, Sheng K, Kishan AU, Hegde JV, Felix C, Basehart V, Narahara K, Shen Z, Tenn S, Steinberg ML, Chin RK, Cao M. A Prospective Phase II Study of Automated Non-Coplanar VMAT for Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer: Initial Report of Feasibility, Safety, and Patient-Reported Outcomes. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14040939. [PMID: 35205686 PMCID: PMC8870161 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14040939] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2022] [Revised: 02/07/2022] [Accepted: 02/09/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary The delivery of higher radiation doses has been shown to increase local control, and ultimately survival, for head and neck cancer patients, but highly conformal dose distributions are necessary to minimize normal tissue toxicity. Varian’s HyperArc non-coplanar automated treatment planning and delivery technique has been shown to improve dose conformity for intracranial treatment, but its safety and efficacy for head and neck cancer treatment has yet to be verified. This study evaluates the initial results of a prospective clinical trial using HyperArc for recurrent head and neck cancer patients. We demonstrated that HyperArc can enable significant tumor dose escalation compared to conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning while minimizing the dose to organs at risk. Treatment delivery was feasible and safe, with minimal treatment-related toxicities and positive patient-reported quality of life measures. Abstract This study reports the initial results for the first 15 patients on a prospective phase II clinical trial exploring the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of the HyperArc technique for recurrent head and neck cancer treatment. Eligible patients were simulated and planned with both conventional VMAT and HyperArc techniques and the plan with superior dosimetry was selected for treatment. Dosimetry, delivery feasibility and safety, treatment-related toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life (QOL) were all evaluated. HyperArc was chosen over conventional VMAT for all 15 patients and enabled statistically significant increases in dose conformity (R50% reduced by 1.2 ± 2.1, p < 0.05) and mean PTV and GTV doses (by 15.7 ± 4.9 Gy, p < 0.01 and 17.1 ± 6.0 Gy, p < 0.01, respectively). The average HyperArc delivery was 2.8 min longer than conventional VMAT (p < 0.01), and the mean intrafraction motion was ≤ 0.5 ± 0.4 mm and ≤0.3 ± 0.1°. With a median follow-up of 12 months, treatment-related toxicity was minimal (only one grade 3 acute toxicity above baseline) and patient-reported QOL metrics were favorable. HyperArc enabled superior dosimetry and significant target dose escalation compared to conventional VMAT planning, and treatment delivery was feasible, safe, and well-tolerated by patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kaley E. Woods
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
| | - Ting Martin Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
| | - Kiri A. Cook
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA;
| | - Eric D. Morris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
| | - Yu Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
| | - Ke Sheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
| | - Amar U. Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
| | - John V. Hegde
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
| | - Carol Felix
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
| | - Vincent Basehart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
| | - Kelsey Narahara
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
| | - Zhouhuizi Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
| | - Stephen Tenn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
| | - Michael L. Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
| | - Robert K. Chin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
- Correspondence: (R.K.C.); (M.C.)
| | - Minsong Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (K.E.W.); (T.M.M.); (E.D.M.); (Y.G.); (K.S.); (A.U.K.); (J.V.H.); (C.F.); (V.B.); (K.N.); (Z.S.); (S.T.); (M.L.S.)
- Correspondence: (R.K.C.); (M.C.)
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Li Y, Li X, Yang J, Wang S, Tang M, Xia J, Gao Y. Flourish of Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy in China. Front Oncol 2022; 12:819905. [PMID: 35237518 PMCID: PMC8882681 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.819905] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2021] [Accepted: 01/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton and heavy ion therapy offer superior relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in the treatment of deep-seated tumors compared with conventional photon radiotherapy due to its Bragg-peak feature of energy deposition in organs. Many proton and carbon ion therapy centers are active all over the world. At present, five particle radiotherapy institutes have been built and are receiving patient in China, mainly including Wanjie Proton Therapy Center (WPTC), Shanghai Proton Heavy Ion Center (SPHIC), Heavy Ion Cancer Treatment Center (HIMM), Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH), and Ruijin Hospital affiliated with Jiao Tong University. Many cancer patients have benefited from ion therapy, showing unique advantages over surgery and chemotherapy. By the end of 2020, nearly 8,000 patients had been treated with proton, carbon ion or carbon ion combined with proton therapy. So far, there is no systemic review for proton and carbon ion therapy facility and clinical outcome in China. We reviewed the development of proton and heavy ion therapy, as well as providing the representative clinical data and future directions for particle therapy in China. It has important guiding significance for the design and construction of new particle therapy center and patients’ choice of treatment equipment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yue Li
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
- *Correspondence: Yue Li,
| | - Xiaoman Li
- Department of Radiation Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China
| | - Jiancheng Yang
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
| | - Sicheng Wang
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
| | - Meitang Tang
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
| | - Jiawen Xia
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
- Huizhou Research Center of Ion Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Huizhou, China
| | - Yunzhe Gao
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
- School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Belotti A, Carpenito L, Bulfamante AM, Maccari A, Bulfamante G. Sinonasal teratocarcinosarcoma treated with surgery and proton beam therapy: clinical, histological aspects and differential diagnosis of a new case. Pathologica 2022; 113:469-474. [PMID: 34974554 PMCID: PMC8720401 DOI: 10.32074/1591-951x-215] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2020] [Accepted: 04/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Sinonasal teratocarcinosarcoma is a rare aggressive malignant tumor with a primary setting involving the nasal cavity followed by the ethmoid sinus and maxillary sinus. It accounts for approximately 3% of all head and neck cancers and less than 1% of all tumors. Nasal obstruction, recurrent epistaxis and headache represent the typical clinical presentation. Imaging shows the presence of a mass in the nasal cavity. The treatment usually consists of surgery and adjuvant intensity modulated radiotherapy. The rarity and the variability of the histological features make its diagnosis particularly difficult. In this paper, we report a case of sinonasal teratocarcinosarcoma in a 62-year-old male treated with a multidisciplinary approach. As an alternative to intensity modulated radiotherapy, we proposed proton beam therapy for the first time. The patient benefited from the new and personalized protocol that provided excellent results and few adverse effects. At 45 months follow-up there is no evidence of relapse and the patient is in good health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessia Belotti
- Human Pathology and Medical Genetic Unit, Department of Health Sciences, San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Laura Carpenito
- Human Pathology and Medical Genetic Unit, Department of Health Sciences, San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Antonio Mario Bulfamante
- Otolaryngology Unit, Department of Health Sciences, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Maccari
- Otolaryngology Unit, Department of Health Sciences, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Gaetano Bulfamante
- Human Pathology and Medical Genetic Unit, Department of Health Sciences, San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Gordon KB, Smyk DI, Gulidov IA. Proton Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer Treatment: State of the Problem and Development Prospects (Review). Sovrem Tekhnologii Med 2021; 13:70-80. [PMID: 34603766 PMCID: PMC8482826 DOI: 10.17691/stm2021.13.4.08] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy (PT) due to dosimetric characteristics (Bragg peak formation, sharp dose slowdown) is currently one of the most high-tech techniques of radiation therapy exceeding the standards of photon methods. In recent decades, PT has traditionally been used, primarily, for head and neck cancers (HNC) including skull base tumors. Regardless of the fact that recently PT application area has significantly expanded, HNC still remain a leading indication for proton radiation since PT’s physic-dosimetric and radiobiological advantages enable to achieve the best treatment results in these tumors. The present review is devoted to PT usage in HNC treatment in the world and Russian medicine, the prospects for further technique development, the assessment of PT’s radiobiological features, a physical and dosimetric comparison of protons photons distribution. The paper shows PT’s capabilities in the treatment of skull base tumors, HNC (nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses, nasopharynx, oropharynx, and laryngopharynx, etc.), eye tumors, sialomas. The authors analyze the studies on repeated radiation and provide recent experimental data on favorable profile of proton radiation compared to the conventional radiation therapy. The review enables to conclude that currently PT is a dynamic radiation technique opening up new opportunities for improving therapy of oncology patients, especially those with HNC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K B Gordon
- Senior Researcher, Proton Therapy Department; A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Centre - Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Centre of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 4 Koroleva St., Kaluga Region, Obninsk, 249036, Russia
| | - D I Smyk
- Junior Researcher, Proton Therapy Department; A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Centre - Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Centre of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 4 Koroleva St., Kaluga Region, Obninsk, 249036, Russia
| | - I A Gulidov
- Professor, Head of the Proton Therapy Department; A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Centre - Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Centre of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 4 Koroleva St., Kaluga Region, Obninsk, 249036, Russia
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Abstract
The delineation of organs at risk is the basis of radiotherapy oncologists' work. Indeed, the knowledge of this delineation enables to better identify the target volumes and to optimize dose distribution, involving the prognosis of the patients but also their future. The learning of this delineation must continue throughout the clinician's career. Some contour changes have appeared with better imaging, some volumes are now required due to development of knowledge of side effects. In addition, the increasing survival time of patients requires to be more systematic and precise in the delineations, both to avoid complications until now exceptional but also because re-irradiations are becoming more and more frequent. We present the update of the recommendations of the French Society for Radiation Oncology (SFRO) on new findings or adaptations to volumes at risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Noël
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe (ICANS), 17, rue Albert-Calmette, BP 23025, 67033 Strasbourg, France.
| | - C Le Fèvre
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe (ICANS), 17, rue Albert-Calmette, BP 23025, 67033 Strasbourg, France
| | - D Antoni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe (ICANS), 17, rue Albert-Calmette, BP 23025, 67033 Strasbourg, France
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Doyen J, Aloi D, Groulier A, Vidal M, Lesueur P, Calugaru V, Bondiau PY. Role of proton therapy in reirradiation and in the treatment of sarcomas. Cancer Radiother 2021; 25:550-553. [PMID: 34284969 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.06.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2021] [Revised: 06/11/2021] [Accepted: 06/16/2021] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
Reirradiation and irradiation of sarcoma is often difficult due to the frequent need for a high dose of radiation in order to increase tumor control. This can result in a greater risk of toxicity which can be mitigated with the use of proton therapy. The present review aims to summarize the role of proton therapy in these 2 clinical contexts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Doyen
- Department of radiation oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, University of Côte d'Azur, 33, avenue de Valombrose, 06189 Nice, France.
| | - D Aloi
- Department of radiation oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, University of Côte d'Azur, 33, avenue de Valombrose, 06189 Nice, France
| | - A Groulier
- Department of radiation oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, University of Côte d'Azur, 33, avenue de Valombrose, 06189 Nice, France
| | - M Vidal
- Department of radiation oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, University of Côte d'Azur, 33, avenue de Valombrose, 06189 Nice, France
| | - P Lesueur
- Department of radiation oncology, Centre François Baclesse, Centre de Protonthérapie de Normandie, University of Caen Normandie, Caen, France
| | - V Calugaru
- Department of radiation oncology, Institut Curie, Centre de Protonthérapie d'Orsay, Orsay, France
| | - P Y Bondiau
- Department of radiation oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, University of Côte d'Azur, 33, avenue de Valombrose, 06189 Nice, France
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Lin A, Chang JHC, Grover RS, Hoebers FJP, Parvathaneni U, Patel SH, Thariat J, Thomson DJ, Langendijk JA, Frank SJ. PTCOG Head and Neck Subcommittee Consensus Guidelines on Particle Therapy for the Management of Head and Neck Tumors. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:84-94. [PMID: 34285938 PMCID: PMC8270078 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00071.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2020] [Accepted: 10/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Radiation therapy is a standard modality in the treatment for cancers of the head and neck, but is associated with significant short- and long-term side effects. Proton therapy, with its unique physical characteristics, can deliver less dose to normal tissues, resulting in fewer side effects. Proton therapy is currently being used for the treatment of head and neck cancer, with increasing clinical evidence supporting its use. However, barriers to wider adoption include access, cost, and the need for higher-level evidence. Methods The clinical evidence for the use of proton therapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer are reviewed here, including indications, advantages, and challenges. Results The Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Head and Neck Subcommittee task group provides consensus guidelines for the use of proton therapy for head and neck cancer. Conclusion This report can be used as a guide for clinical use, to understand clinical trials, and to inform future research efforts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Ryan S Grover
- University of California-San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Frank J P Hoebers
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Juliette Thariat
- Radiation Oncology Department, François Baclesse Center/ARCHADE, Normandy University, Caen, France
| | - David J Thomson
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Steven J Frank
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Shaikh F, Sodhi SK, Kale LM, Talib YA, Saleem HM. Implementation of meta-analysis approach, comparing conventional radiotherapy, and proton beam therapy treating head and neck cancer. J Cancer Res Ther 2020; 16:594-599. [PMID: 32719273 DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_111_19] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
Introduction Radiation therapy is commonly used in the treatment of head and neck cancer in both the definitive and postoperative settings. Proton therapy, due to its intrinsic physical properties, has the ability to reduce the integral dose delivered to the patients while maintaining highly conformal target coverage. Materials and Methods .A literature search was performed on scientific databases, and Preferred Reporting Items for Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed to compute results. Only original studies were selected. Selected studies were used to extract some proposed data for comparison, dosimetry, site, complications, and survival. Results Proton beam therapy technology can be used against the conventional radiotherapy and shows satisfactory results. Yet conventional therapy is not less advantageous considering the amount of work available for any cross interpretations. Conclusion Comparative preplanning could be beneficial considering multiple therapies for ruling out the best treatment outcomes that could be expected.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Firdous Shaikh
- Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, CSMSS Dental College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
| | - Sonia Kaur Sodhi
- Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, CSMSS Dental College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
| | - Lata M Kale
- Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, CSMSS Dental College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
| | - Yusuf A Talib
- Department of Biotechnology, Dr. Rafiq Zakaria Campus, Maulana Azad College, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
| | - Huma Md Saleem
- Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, CSMSS Dental College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Svajdova M, Dubinsky P, Kazda T. Radical external beam re-irradiation in the treatment of recurrent head and neck cancer: Critical review. Head Neck 2020; 43:354-366. [PMID: 32996265 DOI: 10.1002/hed.26485] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2020] [Revised: 08/28/2020] [Accepted: 09/21/2020] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Management of patients with recurrent head and neck cancer remains a challenge for the surgeon as well as the treating radiation oncologist. Even in the era of modern radiotherapy, the rate of severe toxicity remains high with unsatisfactory treatment results. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and heavy-ion irradiation have all emerged as highly conformal and precise techniques that offer many radiobiological advantages in various clinical situations. Although re-irradiation is now widespread in clinical practice, little is known about the differences in treatment response and toxicity using diverse re-irradiation techniques. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the role of radiation therapy in recurrent or second primary head and neck cancer including patient selection, therapeutic outcome, and risk using different re-irradiation techniques. Critical review of published evidence on IMRT, SBRT, and heavy-ion full-dose re-irradiation is presented including data on locoregional control, overall survival, and toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michaela Svajdova
- Clinic of Radiation and Clinical Oncology, Central Military Hospital-Teaching Hospital Ruzomberok, Slovakia.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Pavol Dubinsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, East Slovakia Oncology Institute, Kosice, Slovakia.,Faculty of Health, Catholic University, Ruzomberok, Slovakia
| | - Tomas Kazda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic.,Research Centre for Applied Molecular Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Troost EGC, Wink KCJ, Roelofs E, Simone CB, Makocki S, Löck S, van Kollenburg P, Dechambre D, Minken AWH, van der Stoep J, Avery S, Jansen N, Solberg T, Bussink J, de Ruysscher D. Photons or protons for reirradiation in (non-)small cell lung cancer: Results of the multicentric ROCOCO in silico study. Br J Radiol 2019; 93:20190879. [PMID: 31804145 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190879] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Locally recurrent disease is of increasing concern in (non-)small cell lung cancer [(N)SCLC] patients. Local reirradiation with photons or particles may be of benefit to these patients. In this multicentre in silico trial performed within the Radiation Oncology Collaborative Comparison (ROCOCO) consortium, the doses to the target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were compared when using several photon and proton techniques in patients with recurrent localised lung cancer scheduled to undergo reirradiation. METHODS 24 consecutive patients with a second primary (N)SCLC or recurrent disease after curative-intent, standard fractionated radio(chemo)therapy were included in this study. The target volumes and OARs were centrally contoured and distributed to the participating ROCOCO sites. Remaining doses to the OARs were calculated on an individual patient's basis. Treatment planning was performed by the participating site using the clinical treatment planning system and associated beam characteristics. RESULTS Treatment plans for all modalities (five photon and two proton plans per patient) were available for 22 patients (N = 154 plans). 3D-conformal photon therapy and double-scattered proton therapy delivered significantly lower doses to the target volumes. The highly conformal techniques, i.e., intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), CyberKnife, TomoTherapy and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), reached the highest doses in the target volumes. Of these, IMPT was able to statistically significantly decrease the radiation doses to the OARs. CONCLUSION Highly conformal photon and proton beam techniques enable high-dose reirradiation of the target volume. They, however, significantly differ in the dose deposited in the OARs. The therapeutic options, i.e., reirradiation or systemic therapy, need to be carefully weighed and discussed with the patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Highly conformal photon and proton beam techniques enable high-dose reirradiation of the target volume. In light of the abilities of the various highly conformal techniques to spare specific OARs, the therapeutic options need to be carefully weighed and patients included in the decision-making process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partnersite Dresden, Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumour Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Krista C J Wink
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Erik Roelofs
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Charles B Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center, New York, USA
| | - Sebastian Makocki
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Dresden, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partnersite Dresden, Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Peter van Kollenburg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - David Dechambre
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Liege (CHU), Liege, Belgium.,Radiotherapy Department, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Judith van der Stoep
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Stephen Avery
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Nicolas Jansen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Liege (CHU), Liege, Belgium
| | - Timothy Solberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Johan Bussink
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Dirk de Ruysscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Held T, Harrabi SB, Lang K, Akbaba S, Windisch P, Bernhardt D, Rieken S, Herfarth K, Debus J, Adeberg S. Dose-Limiting Organs at Risk in Carbon Ion Re-Irradiation of Head and Neck Malignancies: An Individual Risk-Benefit Tradeoff. Cancers (Basel) 2019; 11:cancers11122016. [PMID: 31847167 PMCID: PMC6966577 DOI: 10.3390/cancers11122016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2019] [Revised: 12/03/2019] [Accepted: 12/05/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Carbon ion re-irradiation (CIR) was evaluated to investigate treatment planning and the consequences of individual risk-benefit evaluations concerning dose-limiting organs at risk (OAR). Methods: A total of 115 consecutive patients with recurrent head and neck cancer (HNC) were analyzed after initial radiotherapy and CIR at the same anatomical site. Toxicities were evaluated in line with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 4.03. Results: The median maximum cumulative equivalent doses applied in fractions of 2 Gy (EQD2) to the brainstem, optic chiasm, ipsilateral optic nerve, and spinal cord were 56.8 Gy (range 0.94-103.9), 51.4 Gy (range 0-120.3 Gy), 63.6 Gy (range 0-146.1 Gy), and 28.8 Gy (range 0.2-87.7 Gy). The median follow up after CIR was 24.0 months (range 2.5-72.0 months). The cumulative rates of acute and late severe (≥grade III) side effects after CIR were 1.8% and 14.3%. Conclusion: In recurrent HNC, an individual risk-benefit tradeoff is frequently inevitable due to unfavorable location of tumors in close proximity to vital OAR. There are uncertainties about the dose tolerance of OAR after CIR, which warrant increased awareness about the potential treatment toxicity and further studies on heavy ion re-irradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Held
- Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (T.H.); (S.B.H.); (S.A.); (D.B.); (S.R.); (K.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Semi B. Harrabi
- Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (T.H.); (S.B.H.); (S.A.); (D.B.); (S.R.); (K.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Kristin Lang
- Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (T.H.); (S.B.H.); (S.A.); (D.B.); (S.R.); (K.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Sati Akbaba
- Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (T.H.); (S.B.H.); (S.A.); (D.B.); (S.R.); (K.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Paul Windisch
- University Hospital of Zurich, Department of Radiation Oncology, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Denise Bernhardt
- Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (T.H.); (S.B.H.); (S.A.); (D.B.); (S.R.); (K.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stefan Rieken
- Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (T.H.); (S.B.H.); (S.A.); (D.B.); (S.R.); (K.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Klaus Herfarth
- Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (T.H.); (S.B.H.); (S.A.); (D.B.); (S.R.); (K.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (T.H.); (S.B.H.); (S.A.); (D.B.); (S.R.); (K.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Sebastian Adeberg
- Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (T.H.); (S.B.H.); (S.A.); (D.B.); (S.R.); (K.H.)
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Seidensaal K, Harrabi SB, Uhl M, Debus J. Re-irradiation with protons or heavy ions with focus on head and neck, skull base and brain malignancies. Br J Radiol 2019; 93:20190516. [PMID: 31647306 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190516] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Re-irradiation can offer a potentially curative solution in case of progression after initial therapy; however, a second course of radiotherapy can be associated with an increased risk of severe side-effects. Particle therapy with protons and especially carbon ions spares surrounding tissue better than most photon techniques, thus it is of high potential for re-irradiation. Irradiation of tumors of the brain, head and neck and skull base involves several delicate risk organs, e.g. optic system, brainstem, salivary gland or swallowing muscles. Adequate local control rates with tolerable side-effects have been described for several tumors of these locations as meningioma, adenoid cystic carcinoma, chordoma or chondrosarcoma and head and neck tumors. High life time doses nonetheless lead to a different scope of side-effects, e.g. an enhanced rate of carotid blow outs has been reported. This review summarizes the current data on particle irradiation of the aforementioned locations and malignancies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katharina Seidensaal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Semi Ben Harrabi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Matthias Uhl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Juergen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Efficacy and Feasibility of Salvage Re-Irradiation with CyberKnife for In-Field Neck Lymph Node Recurrence: A Retrospective Study. J Clin Med 2019; 8:jcm8111911. [PMID: 31703442 PMCID: PMC6912661 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8111911] [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: 10/01/2019] [Revised: 11/05/2019] [Accepted: 11/05/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Neck lymph node (LN) recurrence in the irradiated field represents an important aspect of treatment failure after primary radiotherapy owing to the lack of a standard treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of CyberKnife treatment for neck LN recurrence after radiotherapy. Between 2008 and 2016, 55 neck LN recurrences after radiotherapy in 16 patients were treated with CyberKnife. The median follow-up period was 17 months (range, 2–53 months). The median previous radiotherapy dose was 68 Gy (range, 50–70 Gy). The median marginal dose as equivalent dose delivered in 2-Gy fractions (α/β = 10) was 50 Gy (range, 40–58 Gy). The one-year local control (LC) and overall survival rates were 81% and 71%, respectively. The one-year LC was higher with a target volume ≤1.0 cm3 than that with a target volume >1.0 cm3 (p = 0.006). Fatal bleeding was observed in one patient who had large (91 cm3) and widespread tumor with invasion to the carotid artery before CyberKnife treatment. CyberKnife treatment for neck LN recurrence is safe and feasible in most cases. Indication for the treatment should be carefully considered for large and widespread tumors.
Collapse
|
28
|
Yuan TZ, Zhan ZJ, Qian CN. New frontiers in proton therapy: applications in cancers. Cancer Commun (Lond) 2019; 39:61. [PMID: 31640788 PMCID: PMC6805548 DOI: 10.1186/s40880-019-0407-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2019] [Accepted: 10/11/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy offers dominant advantages over photon therapy due to the unique depth-dose characteristics of proton, which can cause a dramatic reduction in normal tissue doses both distal and proximal to the tumor target volume. In turn, this feature may allow dose escalation to the tumor target volume while sparing the tumor-neighboring susceptible organs at risk, which has the potential to reduce treatment toxicity and improve local control rate, quality of life and survival. Some dosimetric studies in various cancers have demonstrated the advantages over photon therapy in dose distributions. Further, it has been observed that proton therapy confers to substantial clinical advantage over photon therapy in head and neck, breast, hepatocellular, and non-small cell lung cancers. As such, proton therapy is regarded as the standard modality of radiotherapy in many pediatric cancers from the technical point of view. However, due to the limited clinical evidence, there have been concerns about the high cost of proton therapy from an economic point of view. Considering the treatment expenses for late radiation-induced toxicities, cost-effective analysis in many studies have shown that proton therapy is the most cost-effective option for brain, head and neck and selected breast cancers. Additional studies are warranted to better unveil the cost-effective values of proton therapy and to develop newer ways for better protection of normal tissues. This review aims at reviewing the recent studies on proton therapy to explore its benefits and cost-effectiveness in cancers. We strongly believe that proton therapy will be a common radiotherapy modality for most types of solid cancers in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tai-Ze Yuan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Guangzhou Concord Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510045, Guangdong, P. R. China
| | - Ze-Jiang Zhan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510095, Guangdong, P. R. China
| | - Chao-Nan Qian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Guangzhou Concord Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510045, Guangdong, P. R. China.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Liu X, Wu F, Guo Q, Wang Y, He Y, Luo H, Li Q, Zhong M, Li C, Yang H, Zhou J, Jin F. Estimation of radiotherapy modalities for patients with stage I-II nasal natural killer T-Cell lymphoma. Cancer Manag Res 2019; 11:7219-7229. [PMID: 31534370 PMCID: PMC6681560 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s201514] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2019] [Accepted: 06/29/2019] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The objective of this study is to estimate radiotherapy (RT) modalities for patients with stage I-II nasal natural killer T-Cell lymphoma (NNKTCL), including plan quality, radiation delivery efficiency, cost of RT and excess absolute risk (EAR). Materials and methods Twenty-four representative patients with stage I-II NNKTCL treated with fix-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (FF-IMRT) were re-planned for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), TomoDirect (TD) and TomoHelical (TH) on the TomoHDA system, respectively. Plan characteristics, cost of RT and EAR were compared. Results Compared with IMRT, TD and TH showed significant improvement in terms of D98%, D2%, cold spot volume and homogeneity index (HI) of planning target volume (PTV), while achieving worse Dmean and conformity index (CI). The mean dose of oropharynx, thyroid and left salivary, and the maximum dose of right salivary by TD (249.20%, p=0.000; 52.94%, p=0.000; 160.23%, p=0.022; 122.67%, p=0.027), VMAT (15.76%, p=0.000; 23.53%, p=0.000; 34.09%, p=0.000; 31.33%, p=0.000) and TH (250.32%, p=0.000; 58.82%, p=0.000; 120.45%, p=0.020; 117.33%, p=0.032) increased significantly compared to IMRT. VMAT reduced treatment time (p=0.000; 0.000; 0.000) and monitor units (MUs) (p=0.000; 0.000; 0.000) obviously compared with IMRT, TD and TH. The cost of RT for TD and TH increased 150% compared with IMRT and VMAT. IMRT obtained the lowest EAR to oropharynx, thyroid, left and right salivary gland in the four treatment modalities. Conclusion The results show that both TD and TH can achieve higher conformal target quality while getting worse organs at risk (OARs) sparing and EAR to some organs than IMRT for patients with stage I-II NNKTCL. IMRT delivers the lowest dose to most OARs, VMAT requires the lower cost of RT and shortest delivery time, and TH obtained the optimal target coverage. The results could provide direction for selecting proper RT modalities for different cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xianfeng Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Furong Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Qishuai Guo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Ying Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Yanan He
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Huanli Luo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Qicheng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Mingsong Zhong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Chao Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Han Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Juan Zhou
- Forensic Identification Center, College of Criminal Investigation, Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Fu Jin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Dionisi F, Croci S, Giacomelli I, Cianchetti M, Caldara A, Bertolin M, Vanoni V, Pertile R, Widesott L, Farace P, Schwarz M, Amichetti M. Clinical results of proton therapy reirradiation for recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Acta Oncol 2019; 58:1238-1245. [PMID: 31155998 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2019.1622772] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Background and purpose: Recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) has limited curative treatment options. Reirradiation is the only potential definitive treatment in advanced stages at a cost of substantial severe and often life-threatening toxicity. Proton therapy (PT) reduces irradiated volume compared with X-ray radiotherapy and could be advantageous in terms of safety and efficacy in a population of heavily pretreated patients. We report the retrospective results of PT reirradiation in recurrent NPC patients treated at our Institution Methods: All recurrent NPC patients treated since the beginning of clinical activity entered the present analysis. Clinical target volume consisted of Gross Tumor volume plus a patient-specific margin depending on disease behavior, tumor location, proximity of organs at risk, previous radiation dose. No elective nodal irradiation was performed. Active scanning technique with the use of Single Field Optimization (SFO) or Multifield Optimization (MFO) was adopted. Cumulative X-ray -PT doses were calculated for all patients using a dose accumulation tool since 2016. Treatment toxicity was retrospectively collected. Results: Between February 2015, and October 2018, 17 recurrent NPC patients were treated. Median follow-up (FUP) was 10 months (range 2-41). Median PT reirradiation dose was 60 Gy RBE (range 30.6-66). The majority of patients (53%) underwent concomitant chemotherapy. Acute toxicity was low with no ≥ G3 adverse events. Late events ≥ G3 occurred in 23.5% of patients. Most frequent late toxicity was hearing impairment (17,6%). G2 soft tissue necrosis occurred in two patients. Fatal bleeding of uncertain cause (either tumor recurrence or G5 carotid blowout) occurred in one patient. Kaplan-Meier 18 months Overall Survival (OS) and Local control (LC) rates were 54.4% and 66.6%, respectively. Conclusions: Our initial results with the use of modern PT for reirradiation of recurrent NPC patients are encouraging. Favorable LC and OS rates were obtained at the cost of acceptable severe late toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F. Dionisi
- Proton Therapy Unit, APSS, Trento, Italy
| | - S. Croci
- Radiation Oncology Unit, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | - V. Vanoni
- Radiation Oncology Unit, APSS, Trento, Italy
| | | | | | - P. Farace
- Medical Physics Unit, APSS, Trento, Italy
| | - M. Schwarz
- Medical Physics Unit, APSS, Trento, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Eekers DBP, Roelofs E, Cubillos-Mesías M, Niël C, Smeenk RJ, Hoeben A, Minken AWH, Granzier M, Janssens GO, Kaanders JHAM, Lambin P, Troost EGC. Intensity-modulated proton therapy decreases dose to organs at risk in low-grade glioma patients: results of a multicentric in silico ROCOCO trial. Acta Oncol 2019; 58:57-65. [PMID: 30474448 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2018.1529424] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Patients with low-grade glioma (LGG) have a prolonged survival expectancy due to better discriminative tumor classification and multimodal treatment. Consequently, long-term treatment toxicity gains importance. Contemporary radiotherapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), tomotherapy (TOMO) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) enable high-dose irradiation of the target but they differ regarding delivered dose to organs at risk (OARs). The aim of this comparative in silico study was to determine these dosimetric differences in delivered doses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Imaging datasets of 25 LGG patients having undergone postoperative radiotherapy were included. For each of these patients, in silico treatment plans to a total dose of 50.4 Gy to the target volume were generated for the four treatment modalities investigated (i.e., IMRT, VMAT, TOMO, IMPT). Resulting treatment plans were analyzed regarding dose to target and surrounding OARs comparing IMRT, TOMO and IMPT to VMAT. RESULTS In total, 100 treatment plans (four per patient) were analyzed. Compared to VMAT, the IMPT mean dose (Dmean) for nine out of 10 (90%) OARs was statistically significantly (p < .02) reduced, for TOMO this was true in 3/10 (30%) patients and for 1/10 (10%) patients for IMRT. IMPT was the prime modality reducing dose to the OARs followed by TOMO. DISCUSSION The low dose volume to the majority of OARs was significantly reduced when using IMPT compared to VMAT. Whether this will lead to a significant reduction in neurocognitive decline and improved quality of life is to be determined in carefully designed future clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniëlle B. P. Eekers
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Proton Therapy Centre South-East Netherlands (ZON-PTC), Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Erik Roelofs
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Oncology (The D-Lab), GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Macarena Cubillos-Mesías
- OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cal Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden, Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Charles Niël
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapiegroep, Deventer, The Netherlands
| | - Robert Jan Smeenk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, RadboudUMC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Ann Hoeben
- Department of Medical Oncology, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Andre W. H. Minken
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapiegroep, Deventer, The Netherlands
| | - Marlies Granzier
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Geert O. Janssens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, RadboudUMC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Philippe Lambin
- Department of Radiation Oncology (The D-Lab), GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Esther G. C. Troost
- OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cal Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden, Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden – Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology – OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- mNational Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Partner Site Dresden, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, and Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden, Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Göttgens EL, Ostheimer C, Span PN, Bussink J, Hammond EM. HPV, hypoxia and radiation response in head and neck cancer. Br J Radiol 2019; 92:20180047. [PMID: 29493265 PMCID: PMC6435089 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20180047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2018] [Revised: 02/26/2018] [Accepted: 02/26/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Over the last decades, the incidence of human papilloma virus (HPV) positive head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC) has significantly increased. Infection with high-risk HPV types drives tumourigenesis through expression of the oncoproteins E6 and E7. Currently, the primary treatment of HNSCC consists of radiotherapy, often combined with platinum-based chemotherapeutics. One of the common features of HNSCC is the occurrence of tumour hypoxia, which impairs the efficacy of radiotherapy and is a negative prognostic factor. Therefore, it is important to detect and quantify the severity of hypoxia, as well as develop strategies to specifically target hypoxic tumours. HPV-positive tumours are remarkably radiosensitive compared to HPV-negative tumours and consequently the HPV-positive patients have a better prognosis. This provides an opportunity to elucidate mechanisms of radiation sensitivity, which may reveal targets for improved therapy for HPV-negative head and neck cancers. In this review, we will discuss the differences between HPV-positive and HPV-negative head and neck tumours and methods of hypoxia detection and targeting in these disease types. Particular emphasis will be placed on the mechanisms by which HPV infection impacts radiosensitivity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eva-Leonne Göttgens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapy & OncoImmunology laboratory, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | | | - Paul N Span
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapy & OncoImmunology laboratory, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Jan Bussink
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapy & OncoImmunology laboratory, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Ester M Hammond
- Department of Oncology, CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) - The future of IMRT for head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol 2018; 88:66-74. [PMID: 30616799 DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.11.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 93] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2018] [Revised: 11/11/2018] [Accepted: 11/12/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy plays an integral role in the management of head and neck cancers (HNCs). While most HNC patients have historically been treated with photon-based radiation techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), there is a growing awareness of the potential clinical benefits of proton therapy over IMRT in the definitive, postoperative and reirradiation settings given the unique physical properties of protons. Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), also known as "pencil beam proton therapy," is a sophisticated mode of proton therapy that is analogous to IMRT and an active area of investigation in cancer care. Multifield optimization IMPT allows for high quality plans that can target superficially located HNCs as well as large neck volumes while significantly reducing integral doses. Several dosimetric studies have demonstrated the superiority of IMPT over IMRT to improve dose sparing of nearby organs such as the larynx, salivary glands, and esophagus. Evidence of the clinical translation of these dosimetric advantages has been demonstrated with documented toxicity reductions (such as decreased feeding tube dependency) after IMPT for patients with HNCs. While there are relative challenges to IMPT planning that exist today such as particle range uncertainties and high sensitivity to anatomical changes, ongoing investigations in image-guidance techniques and robust optimization methods are promising. A systematic approach towards utilizing IMPT and additional prospective studies are necessary in order to more accurately estimate the clinical benefit of IMPT over IMRT and passive proton therapy on a case-by-case basis for patients with sub-site specific HNCs.
Collapse
|
34
|
Wink KC, Roelofs E, Simone CB, Dechambre D, Santiago A, van der Stoep J, Dries W, Smits J, Avery S, Ammazzalorso F, Jansen N, Jelen U, Solberg T, de Ruysscher D, Troost EG. Photons, protons or carbon ions for stage I non-small cell lung cancer – Results of the multicentric ROCOCO in silico study. Radiother Oncol 2018; 128:139-146. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.02.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2017] [Revised: 02/21/2018] [Accepted: 02/22/2018] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
|
35
|
Michiels S, Barragán AM, Souris K, Poels K, Crijns W, Lee JA, Sterpin E, Nuyts S, Haustermans K, Depuydt T. Patient-specific bolus for range shifter air gap reduction in intensity-modulated proton therapy of head-and-neck cancer studied with Monte Carlo based plan optimization. Radiother Oncol 2018; 128:161-166. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2017] [Revised: 07/26/2017] [Accepted: 09/09/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
36
|
Jin F, Luo HL, Zhou J, He YN, Liu XF, Zhong MS, Yang H, Li C, Li QC, Huang X, Tian XM, Qiu D, He GL, Yin L, Wang Y. Cancer risk assessment in modern radiotherapy workflow with medical big data. Cancer Manag Res 2018; 10:1665-1675. [PMID: 29970965 PMCID: PMC6021004 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s164980] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Modern radiotherapy (RT) is being enriched by big digital data and intensive technology. Multimodality image registration, intelligence-guided planning, real-time tracking, image-guided RT (IGRT), and automatic follow-up surveys are the products of the digital era. Enormous digital data are created in the process of treatment, including benefits and risks. Generally, decision making in RT tries to balance these two aspects, which is based on the archival and retrieving of data from various platforms. However, modern risk-based analysis shows that many errors that occur in radiation oncology are due to failures in workflow. These errors can lead to imbalance between benefits and risks. In addition, the exact mechanism and dose-response relationship for radiation-induced malignancy are not well understood. The cancer risk in modern RT workflow continues to be a problem. Therefore, in this review, we develop risk assessments based on our current knowledge of IGRT and provide strategies for cancer risk reduction. Artificial intelligence (AI) such as machine learning is also discussed because big data are transforming RT via AI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fu Jin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Huan-Li Luo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Juan Zhou
- Forensic Identification Center, College of Criminal Investigation, Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Ya-Nan He
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Xian-Feng Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Ming-Song Zhong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Han Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Chao Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Qi-Cheng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Xia Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Xiu-Mei Tian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Da Qiu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Guang-Lei He
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Li Yin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Ying Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Blanchard P, Gunn GB, Lin A, Foote RL, Lee NY, Frank SJ. Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Cancers. Semin Radiat Oncol 2018; 28:53-63. [PMID: 29173756 DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2017.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 67] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Because of its sharp lateral penumbra and steep distal fall-off, proton therapy offers dosimetric advantages over photon therapy. In head and neck cancer, proton therapy has been used for decades in the treatment of skull-base tumors. In recent years the use of proton therapy has been extended to numerous other disease sites, including nasopharynx, oropharynx, nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, periorbital tumors, skin, and salivary gland, or to reirradiation. The aim of this review is to present the physical properties and dosimetric benefit of proton therapy over advanced photon therapy; to summarize the clinical benefit described for each disease site; and to discuss issues of patient selection and cost-effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pierre Blanchard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Gary Brandon Gunn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Alexander Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Robert L Foote
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Nancy Y Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Eekers DB, In 't Ven L, Roelofs E, Postma A, Alapetite C, Burnet NG, Calugaru V, Compter I, Coremans IEM, Høyer M, Lambrecht M, Nyström PW, Méndez Romero A, Paulsen F, Perpar A, de Ruysscher D, Renard L, Timmermann B, Vitek P, Weber DC, van der Weide HL, Whitfield GA, Wiggenraad R, Troost EGC. The EPTN consensus-based atlas for CT- and MR-based contouring in neuro-oncology. Radiother Oncol 2018; 128:37-43. [PMID: 29548560 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.12.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 82] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2017] [Revised: 12/01/2017] [Accepted: 12/19/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To create a digital, online atlas for organs at risk (OAR) delineation in neuro-oncology based on high-quality computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. METHODS CT and 3 Tesla (3T) MR images (slice thickness 1 mm with intravenous contrast agent) were obtained from the same patient and subsequently fused. In addition, a 7T MR without intravenous contrast agent was obtained from a healthy volunteer. Based on discussion between experienced radiation oncologists, the clinically relevant organs at risk (OARs) to be included in the atlas for neuro-oncology were determined, excluding typical head and neck OARs previously published. The draft atlas was delineated by a senior radiation oncologist, 2 residents in radiation oncology, and a senior neuro-radiologist incorporating relevant available literature. The proposed atlas was then critically reviewed and discussed by European radiation oncologists until consensus was reached. RESULTS The online atlas includes one CT-scan at two different window settings and one MR scan (3T) showing the OARs in axial, coronal and sagittal view. This manuscript presents the three-dimensional descriptions of the fifteen consensus OARs for neuro-oncology. Among these is a new OAR relevant for neuro-cognition, the posterior cerebellum (illustrated on 7T MR images). CONCLUSION In order to decrease inter- and intra-observer variability in delineating OARs relevant for neuro-oncology and thus derive consistent dosimetric data, we propose this atlas to be used in photon and particle therapy. The atlas is available online at www.cancerdata.org and will be updated whenever required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniëlle Bp Eekers
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands; Proton Therapy Department South-East Netherlands (ZON-PTC), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | - Lieke In 't Ven
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands
| | - Erik Roelofs
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands; The-D Lab: Decision Support for Precision Medicine, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, The Netherlands
| | - Alida Postma
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine MUMC+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Claire Alapetite
- Institut Curie, Radiation Oncology Department, Paris & Proton Center, Orsay, France
| | - Neil G Burnet
- University of Cambridge Department of Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, United Kingdom
| | - Valentin Calugaru
- Institute Curie, Paris, France; Institute Curie, Centre de Protonthérapie d'Orsay, Orsay, France
| | - Inge Compter
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands
| | - Ida E M Coremans
- Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Radiotherapy, The Netherlands; Holland Proton Therapy Centre, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Morton Høyer
- Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Maarten Lambrecht
- Department of Radiotherapy-Oncology, Leuven Kanker Instituut, UZ Gasthuisberg, Belgium
| | - Petra Witt Nyström
- The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden; Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Sweden
| | - Alejandra Méndez Romero
- Holland Proton Therapy Centre, Delft, The Netherlands; Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Frank Paulsen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Eberhard-Carls-Universität Tübingen, Germany
| | - Ana Perpar
- EBG MedAustron GmbH, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Dirk de Ruysscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands; Department of Radiotherapy-Oncology, Leuven Kanker Instituut, UZ Gasthuisberg, Belgium
| | - Laurette Renard
- Service de Radiothérapie Oncologique Cliniques universitaires St Luc, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Beate Timmermann
- Clinic for Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, West German Cancer Center (WTZ), Germany; West German Proton Therapy Center Essen (WPE), Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partnersite Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Pavel Vitek
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Damien C Weber
- Paul Scherrer Institut med. Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland
| | - Hiske L van der Weide
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Gillian A Whitfield
- The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom; The Children's Brain Tumour Research Network, University of Manchester, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, United Kingdom
| | - Ruud Wiggenraad
- Holland Proton Therapy Centre, Delft, The Netherlands; Haaglanden Medisch Centrum, Department of Radiotherapy, Leidschendam, The Netherlands
| | - Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partnersite Dresden, Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), partnersite Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Towards a Clinical Decision Support System for External Beam Radiation Oncology Prostate Cancer Patients: Proton vs. Photon Radiotherapy? A Radiobiological Study of Robustness and Stability. Cancers (Basel) 2018; 10:cancers10020055. [PMID: 29463018 PMCID: PMC5836087 DOI: 10.3390/cancers10020055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2017] [Revised: 01/19/2018] [Accepted: 02/14/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
We present a methodology which can be utilized to select proton or photon radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients. Four state-of-the-art competing treatment modalities were compared (by way of an in silico trial) for a cohort of 25 prostate cancer patients, with and without correction strategies for prostate displacements. Metrics measured from clinical image guidance systems were used. Three correction strategies were investigated; no-correction, extended-no-action-limit, and online-correction. Clinical efficacy was estimated via radiobiological models incorporating robustness (how probable a given treatment plan was delivered) and stability (the consistency between the probable best and worst delivered treatments at the 95% confidence limit). The results obtained at the cohort level enabled the determination of a threshold for likely clinical benefit at the individual level. Depending on the imaging system and correction strategy; 24%, 32% and 44% of patients were identified as suitable candidates for proton therapy. For the constraints of this study: Intensity-modulated proton therapy with online-correction was on average the most effective modality. Irrespective of the imaging system, each treatment modality is similar in terms of robustness, with and without the correction strategies. Conversely, there is substantial variation in stability between the treatment modalities, which is greatly reduced by correction strategies. This study provides a ‘proof-of-concept’ methodology to enable the prospective identification of individual patients that will most likely (above a certain threshold) benefit from proton therapy.
Collapse
|
40
|
Repeat reirradiation of the spinal cord: multi-national expert treatment recommendations. Strahlenther Onkol 2018; 194:365-374. [PMID: 29362835 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-018-1266-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2017] [Accepted: 01/10/2018] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Improved survival of patients with spinal bone metastases has resulted in an increased number of referrals for retreatment and repeat reirradiation. METHODS A consortium of expert radiation oncologists (RO) has been established with the aim of providing treatment recommendations for challenging clinical scenarios for which there are no established guidelines. In this case, a patient developed local progression of a T5 vertebral lesion after two prior courses of palliative radiotherapy (time interval >12 months, assumed cumulative biologically equivalent dose in 2‑Gy fractions [EQD2] for spinal cord [alpha/beta 2 Gy] 75 Gy). Expert recommendations were tabulated with the aim of providing guidance. RESULTS Five of seven RO would offer a third course of radiotherapy, preferably with advanced techniques such as stereotactic radiotherapy. However, the dose-fractionation concepts were heterogeneous (3-20 fractions) and sometimes adjusted to different options for systemic treatment. All five RO would compromise target volume coverage to reduce the dose to the spinal cord. Definition of the spinal cord planning-organ-at-risk volume was heterogeneous. All five RO limited the EQD2 for spinal cord. Two were willing to accept more than 12.5 Gy and the highest EQD2 was 19 Gy. CONCLUSIONS The increasing body of literature about bone metastases and spinal cord reirradiation has encouraged some expert RO to offer palliative reirradiation with cumulative cord doses above 75 Gy EQD2; however, no consensus was achieved. Strategies for harmonization of clinical practice and development of evidence-based dose constraints are discussed.
Collapse
|
41
|
Medical physics in radiation Oncology: New challenges, needs and roles. Radiother Oncol 2017; 125:375-378. [PMID: 29150160 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.10.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2017] [Accepted: 10/30/2017] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
|
42
|
Systematic assessment of clinical outcomes and toxicities of proton radiotherapy for reirradiation. Radiother Oncol 2017; 125:21-30. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2017] [Revised: 08/06/2017] [Accepted: 08/06/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
43
|
Blanchard P, Frank SJ. [Proton therapy for head and neck cancers]. Cancer Radiother 2017; 21:515-520. [PMID: 28869195 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2017.06.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2017] [Revised: 06/27/2017] [Accepted: 06/30/2017] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
The absence of exit dose and the sharp lateral penumbra are key assets for proton therapy, which are responsible for its dosimetric superiority over advanced photon radiotherapy. Dosimetric comparisons have consistently shown a reduction of the integral dose and the dose to organs at risk favouring intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) over intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The structures that benefit the most of these dosimetric improvements in head and neck cancers are the anterior oral cavity, the posterior fossa, the visual apparatus and swallowing structures. A number of publications have concluded that these dosimetric differences actually translate into reduced toxicities with IMPT, for example with regards to reduced weight loss or need for feeding tube. Patient survival is usually similar to IMRT series, except in base of skull or sinonasal malignancies, where a survival advantage of IMPT could exist. The goals of the present review is to describe the major characteristics of proton therapy, to analyse the clinical data with regards to head and neck cancer patients, and to highlight the issue of patient selection and physical and biological uncertainties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Blanchard
- Department of radiation oncology, MD Anderson cancer center, the university of Texas, Houston, Texas, États-Unis; Département de radiothérapie, Gustave-Roussy cancer campus, 114, rue Édouard-Vaillant, 94800 Villejuif, France.
| | - S J Frank
- Department of radiation oncology, MD Anderson cancer center, the university of Texas, Houston, Texas, États-Unis
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Yan H, Mo Z, Xiang Z, Rong D, Zhang Y, Chen G, Zhong Z, Zhang F, Gao F. CT-guided 125I brachytherapy for locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Cancer 2017; 8:2104-2113. [PMID: 28819412 PMCID: PMC5559973 DOI: 10.7150/jca.19078] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2017] [Accepted: 04/14/2017] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose: The study evaluated the feasibility, clinical effectiveness, and quality of life of computed tomography (CT)-guided 125I brachytherapy for locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods: We recruited 81 patients diagnosed with locally recurrent NPC after previous radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. Thirty-nine patients received 125I brachytherapy (group A) and 42 received re-irradiation (IMRT, group B). The evaluated outcomes were local control, complications, and quality of life. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to compare local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and overall survival (OS) in the two treatment groups. Results: The median follow-up was 30 months (range, 5-68 months), median LTPFS was 21 in group A and 17 months in group B. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS in group A were 84.6%, 51.3%, 30.7%, and 85.7%, 50.0%, and 32.6% in group B. In group A, 10/39 patients (25.6%) experienced at least one ≥grade III complication; no grade V complications occurred. In group B, 28/42 (66.7%) experienced at least one ≥grade III complication and 6/42 (14.3%) died of severe grade V complications. No significant between-group difference existed in the Quality of Life score on the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 questionnaire before treatment. In group A, quality of life was significantly improved after treatment; but did not improve, or even deteriorated in group B. Conclusions: 125I brachytherapy was a feasible, safe, and effective treatment for locally recurrent NPC. 125I brachytherapy significantly reduced complications caused by re-irradiation and improved patients' quality of life.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Huzheng Yan
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China. ADD: 651 Dongfeng Road, East, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhiqiang Mo
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China. ADD: 651 Dongfeng Road, East, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhanwang Xiang
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China. ADD: 651 Dongfeng Road, East, Guangzhou, China
| | - Dailin Rong
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China. ADD: 651 Dongfeng Road, East, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yanlin Zhang
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China. ADD: 651 Dongfeng Road, East, Guangzhou, China
| | - Guanyu Chen
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China. ADD: 651 Dongfeng Road, East, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhihui Zhong
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China. ADD: 651 Dongfeng Road, East, Guangzhou, China
| | - Fujun Zhang
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China. ADD: 651 Dongfeng Road, East, Guangzhou, China
| | - Fei Gao
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China. ADD: 651 Dongfeng Road, East, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Bots WTC, van den Bosch S, Zwijnenburg EM, Dijkema T, van den Broek GB, Weijs WLJ, Verhoef LCG, Kaanders JHAM. Reirradiation of head and neck cancer: Long-term disease control and toxicity. Head Neck 2017; 39:1122-1130. [PMID: 28263446 PMCID: PMC5485062 DOI: 10.1002/hed.24733] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2016] [Revised: 12/06/2016] [Accepted: 12/29/2016] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The purpose of this study was to report long‐term disease control and late radiation toxicity for patients reirradiated for head and neck cancer. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 137 patients reirradiated with a prescribed dose ≥45 Gy between 1986 and 2013 for a recurrent or second primary malignancy. Endpoints were locoregional control, overall survival (OS), and grade ≥4 late complications according to European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) criteria. Results Five‐year locoregional control rates were 46% for patients reirradiated postoperatively versus 20% for patients who underwent reirradiation as the primary treatment (p < .05). Sixteen cases of serious (grade ≥4) late toxicity were seen in 11 patients (actuarial 28% at 5 years). In patients reirradiated with intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), a borderline improved locoregional control was observed (49% vs 36%; p = .07), whereas late complication rates did not differ. Conclusion Reirradiation should be considered for patients with a recurrent or second primary head and neck cancer, especially postoperatively, if indicated. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck39: 1122–1130, 2017
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wouter T C Bots
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Sven van den Bosch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Ellen M Zwijnenburg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Tim Dijkema
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Guido B van den Broek
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Willem L J Weijs
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Lia C G Verhoef
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes H A M Kaanders
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|