1
|
Camarda AM, Vincini MG, Russo S, Comi S, Emiro F, Bazani A, Ingargiola R, Vischioni B, Vecchi C, Volpe S, Orecchia R, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Orlandi E, Alterio D. Dosimetric and NTCP analyses for selecting parotid gland cancer patients for proton therapy. TUMORI JOURNAL 2024:3008916241252544. [PMID: 38769916 DOI: 10.1177/03008916241252544] [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: 05/22/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE To perform a dosimetric and a normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) comparison between intensity modulated proton therapy and photon volumetric modulated arc therapy in a cohort of patients with parotid gland cancers in a post-operative or radical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS From May 2011 to September 2021, 37 parotid gland cancers patients treated at two institutions were eligible. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients aged ⩾ 18 years, diagnosis of parotid gland cancers candidate for postoperative radiotherapy or definitive radiotherapy, presence of written informed consent for the use of anonymous data for research purposes. Organs at risk (OARs) were retrospectively contoured. Target coverage goal was defined as D95 > 98%. Six NTCP models were selected. NTCP profiles were calculated for each patient using an internally-developed Python script in RayStation TPS. Average differences in NTCP between photon and proton plans were tested for significance with a two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS Seventy-four plans were generated. A lower Dmean to the majority of organs at risk (inner ear, cochlea, oral cavity, pharyngeal constrictor muscles, contralateral parotid and submandibular gland) was obtained with intensity modulated proton therapy vs volumetric modulated arc therapy with statistical significance (p < .05). Ten (27%) patients had a difference in NTCP (photon vs proton plans) greater than 10% for hearing loss and tinnitus: among them, seven qualified for both endpoints, two patients for hearing loss only, and one for tinnitus. CONCLUSIONS In the current study, nearly one-third of patients resulted eligible for proton therapy and they were the most likely to benefit in terms of prevention of hearing loss and tinnitus.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Maria Camarda
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy, Pavia, Italy
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Maria Giulia Vincini
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefania Russo
- Medical Physics Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy, Pavia, Italy
| | - Stefania Comi
- Unit of Medical Physics, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesca Emiro
- Unit of Medical Physics, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Alessia Bazani
- Medical Physics Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy, Pavia, Italy
| | - Rossana Ingargiola
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy, Pavia, Italy
| | - Barbara Vischioni
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy, Pavia, Italy
| | | | - 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
| | - Roberto Orecchia
- Scientific Directorate, 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
| | - Ester Orlandi
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy, Pavia, Italy
- Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences,University of Pavia, Italy
| | - Daniela Alterio
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wu XY, Chen M, Cao L, Li M, Chen JY. Proton Therapy in Breast Cancer: A Review of Potential Approaches for Patient Selection. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2024; 23:15330338241234788. [PMID: 38389426 PMCID: PMC10894553 DOI: 10.1177/15330338241234788] [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: 09/06/2023] [Revised: 11/25/2023] [Accepted: 02/06/2024] [Indexed: 02/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Proton radiotherapy may be a compelling technical option for the treatment of breast cancer due to its unique physical property known as the "Bragg peak." This feature offers distinct advantages, promising superior dose conformity within the tumor area and reduced radiation exposure to surrounding healthy tissues, enhancing the potential for better treatment outcomes. However, proton therapy is accompanied by inherent challenges, primarily higher costs and limited accessibility when compared to well-developed photon irradiation. Thus, in clinical practice, it is important for radiation oncologists to carefully select patients before recommendation of proton therapy to ensure the transformation of dosimetric benefits into tangible clinical benefits. Yet, the optimal indications for proton therapy in breast cancer patients remain uncertain. While there is no widely recognized methodology for patient selection, numerous attempts have been made in this direction. In this review, we intended to present an inspiring summarization and discussion about the current practices and exploration on the approaches of this treatment decision-making process in terms of treatment-related side-effects, tumor control, and cost-efficiency, including the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model, the tumor control probability (TCP) model, genomic biomarkers, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), and so on. Additionally, we conducted an evaluation of the eligibility criteria in ongoing randomized controlled trials and analyzed their reference value in patient selection. We evaluated the pros and cons of various potential patient selection approaches and proposed possible directions for further optimization and exploration. In summary, while proton therapy holds significant promise in breast cancer treatment, its integration into clinical practice calls for a thoughtful, evidence-driven strategy. By continuously refining the patient selection criteria, we can harness the full potential of proton radiotherapy while ensuring maximum benefit for breast cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiao-Yu Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Mei Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Lu Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Min Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Jia-Yi Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Friborg J, Jensen K, Eriksen JG, Samsøe E, Maare C, Farhadi M, Sibolt P, Nielsen M, Andersen M, Holm AIS, Skyt P, Smulders B, Johansen J, Overgaard J, Grau C, Hansen CR. Considerations for study design in the DAHANCA 35 trial of protons versus photons for head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2024; 190:109958. [PMID: 37871751 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109958] [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: 11/09/2022] [Revised: 08/10/2023] [Accepted: 09/26/2023] [Indexed: 10/25/2023]
Abstract
Proton radiotherapy offers a dosimetric advantage compared to photon therapy in sparing normal tissue, but the clinical evidence for toxicity reductions in the treatment of head and neck cancer is limited. The Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group (DAHANCA) has initiated the DAHANCA 35 randomised trial to clarify the value of proton therapy (NCT04607694). The DAHANCA 35 trial is performed in an enriched population of patients selected by an anticipated benefit of proton therapy to reduce the risk of late dysphagia or xerostomia based on normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) modelling. We present our considerations on the trial design and a test of the selection procedure conducted before initiating the randomised study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Friborg
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Denmark. %
| | - K Jensen
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - J G Eriksen
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Denmark
| | - E Samsøe
- Department of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital Næstved, Denmark
| | - C Maare
- Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark
| | - M Farhadi
- Department of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital Næstved, Denmark
| | - P Sibolt
- Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark
| | - M Nielsen
- Department of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark
| | - M Andersen
- Department of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark
| | - A I S Holm
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - P Skyt
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - B Smulders
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Denmark
| | - J Johansen
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark
| | - J Overgaard
- Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Denmark
| | - C Grau
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - C R Hansen
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Nangia S, Gaikwad U, Noufal MP, Sawant M, Wakde M, Mathew A, Chilukuri S, Sharma D, Jalali R. Proton therapy and oral mucositis in oral & oropharyngeal cancers: outcomes, dosimetric and NTCP benefit. Radiat Oncol 2023; 18:121. [PMID: 37468950 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-023-02317-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2022] [Accepted: 07/06/2023] [Indexed: 07/21/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Radiation-induced oral mucositis (RIOM), is a common, debilitating, acute side effect of radiotherapy for oral cavity (OC) and oropharyngeal (OPx) cancers; technical innovations for reducing it are seldom discussed. Intensity-modulated-proton-therapy (IMPT) has been reported extensively for treating OPx cancers, and less frequently for OC cancers. We aim to quantify the reduction in the likelihood of RIOM in treating these 2 subsites with IMPT compared to Helical Tomotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS We report acute toxicities and early outcomes of 22 consecutive patients with OC and OPx cancers treated with IMPT, and compare the dosimetry and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of ≥ grade 3 mucositis for IMPT and HT. RESULTS Twenty two patients, 77% males, 41% elderly and 73% OC subsite, were reviewed. With comparable target coverage, IMPT significantly reduced the mean dose and D32, D39, D45, and D50, for both the oral mucosa (OM) and spared oral mucosa (sOM). With IMPT, there was a 7% absolute and 16.5% relative reduction in NTCP for grade 3 mucositis for OM, compared to HT. IMPT further reduced NTCP for sOM, and the benefit was maintained in OC, OPx subsites and elderly subgroup. Acute toxicities, grade III dermatitis and mucositis, were noted in 50% and 45.5% patients, respectively, while 22.7% patients had grade 3 dysphagia. Compared with published data, the hospital admission rate, median weight loss, feeding tube insertion, unplanned treatment gaps were lower with IMPT. At a median follow-up of 15 months, 81.8% were alive; 72.7%, alive without disease and 9%, alive with disease. CONCLUSION The dosimetric benefit of IMPT translates into NTCP reduction for grade 3 mucositis compared to Helical Tomotherapy for OPx and OC cancers and encourages the use of IMPT in their management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sapna Nangia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Instronic Estate, Taramani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
| | - Utpal Gaikwad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Instronic Estate, Taramani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - M P Noufal
- Department of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Mayur Sawant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Manoj Wakde
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Instronic Estate, Taramani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Ashwathy Mathew
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Instronic Estate, Taramani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Srinivas Chilukuri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Instronic Estate, Taramani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Dayananda Sharma
- Department of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Rakesh Jalali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Instronic Estate, Taramani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lalonde A, Bobić M, Sharp GC, Chamseddine I, Winey B, Paganetti H. Evaluating the effect of setup uncertainty reduction and adaptation to geometric changes on normal tissue complication probability using online adaptive head and neck intensity modulated proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68:115018. [PMID: 37164020 PMCID: PMC10351361 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acd433] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2023] [Revised: 05/03/2023] [Accepted: 05/10/2023] [Indexed: 05/12/2023]
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate the impact of setup uncertainty reduction (SUR) and adaptation to geometrical changes (AGC) on normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) when using online adaptive head and neck intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT).Approach.A cohort of ten retrospective head and neck cancer patients with daily scatter corrected cone-beam CT (CBCT) was studied. For each patient, two IMPT treatment plans were created: one with a 3 mm setup uncertainty robustness setting and one with no explicit setup robustness. Both plans were recalculated on the daily CBCT considering three scenarios: the robust plan without adaptation, the non-robust plan without adaptation and the non-robust plan with daily online adaptation. Online-adaptation was simulated using an in-house developed workflow based on GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo dose calculation and partial spot-intensity re-optimization. Dose distributions associated with each scenario were accumulated on the planning CT, where NTCP models for six toxicities were applied. NTCP values from each scenario were intercompared to quantify the reduction in toxicity risk induced by SUR alone, AGC alone and SUR and AGC combined. Finally, a decision tree was implemented to assess the clinical significance of the toxicity reduction associated with each mechanism.Main results. For most patients, clinically meaningful NTCP reductions were only achieved when SUR and AGC were performed together. In these conditions, total reductions in NTCP of up to 30.48 pp were obtained, with noticeable NTCP reductions for aspiration, dysphagia and xerostomia (mean reductions of 8.25, 5.42 and 5.12 pp respectively). While SUR had a generally larger impact than AGC on NTCP reductions, SUR alone did not induce clinically meaningful toxicity reductions in any patient, compared to only one for AGC alone.SignificanceOnline adaptive head and neck proton therapy can only yield clinically significant reductions in the risk of long-term side effects when combining the benefits of SUR and AGC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arthur Lalonde
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Mislav Bobić
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Gregory C Sharp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Ibrahim Chamseddine
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Brian Winey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Walser MA, Bachmann N, Kluckert J, Köthe A, Tully C, Leiser D, Lomax AJ, Bizzocchi N, Langendijk JA, Weber DC. Clinical outcome after pencil beam scanning proton therapy and dysphagia/xerostomia NTCP calculations of proton and photon radiotherapy delivered to patients with cancer of the major salivary glands. Br J Radiol 2023:20220672. [PMID: 37129312 PMCID: PMC10392657 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20220672] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/03/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study is to report the oncological outcome, observed toxicities and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) calculation for pencil beam scanning (PBS) PT delivered to salivary gland tumour (SGT) patients. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed 26 SGT patients treated with PBSPT (median dose, 67.5 Gy(RBE)) between 2005 and 2020 at our institute. Toxicities were recorded according to CTCAEv.4.1. Overall survival (OS), local control (LC), locoregional control (LRC) and distant control (DC) were estimated. For all patients, a photon plan was re-calculated in order to assess the photon/proton NTCP. RESULTS With a median follow-up time of 46 months (range, 3-118), 5 (19%), 2 (8%), 3 (12%) and 2 (8%) patients presented after PT with distant, local, locoregional failures and death, respectively. The estimated 4 year OS, LC, LCR and DC were 90%, 90%, 87 and 77%, respectively. Grade 3 late toxicity was observed in 2 (8%) patients. The estimated 4 year late high-grade (≥3) toxicity-free survival was 78.4%. The calculated mean difference of NTCP-values after PBSPT and VMAT plans for developing Grade 2 or 3 xerostomia were 3.8 and 2.9%, respectively. For Grade 2-3 dysphagia, the grade corresponding percentages were 8.6 and 1.9%. Not using an up-front model-based approach to select patients for PT, only 40% of our patients met the Dutch eligibility criteria. CONCLUSION Our data suggest excellent oncological outcome and low late toxicity rates for patients with SGT treated with PBSPT. NTCP calculation showed a substantial risk reduction for Grade 2 or 3 xerostomia and dysphagia in some SGT patients, while for others, no clear benefit was seen with protons, suggesting that comparative planning should be performed routinely for these patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE We have reported that the clinical outcome of SGT patients treated with PT and compared IMPT to VMAT for the treatment of salivary gland tumour and have observed that protons delivered significantly less dose to organs at risks and were associated with less NTCP for xerostomia and dysphagia. Noteworthy, not using an up-front model-based approach, only 40% of our patients met the Dutch eligibility criteria.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marc Andrea Walser
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, ETH Domain, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Nicolas Bachmann
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, ETH Domain, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, lnselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Jonas Kluckert
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, ETH Domain, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland
| | - A Köthe
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, ETH Domain, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Carson Tully
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, ETH Domain, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Dominic Leiser
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, ETH Domain, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Antony John Lomax
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, ETH Domain, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Nicola Bizzocchi
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, ETH Domain, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland
| | | | - Damien C Weber
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, ETH Domain, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, lnselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Tommasino F, Cartechini G, Righetto R, Farace P, Cianchetti M. Does variable RBE affect toxicity risks for mediastinal lymphoma patients? NTCP-based evaluation after proton therapy treatment. Phys Med 2023; 108:102569. [PMID: 36989976 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2022] [Revised: 02/04/2023] [Accepted: 03/18/2023] [Indexed: 03/29/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Mediastinal lymphoma (ML) is a solid malignancy affecting young patients. Modern combined treatments allow obtaining good survival probability, together with a long life expectancy, and therefore with the need to minimize treatment-related toxicities. We quantified the expected toxicity risk for different organs and endpoints in ML patients treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) at our centre, accounting also for uncertainties related to variable RBE. METHODS Treatment plans for ten ML patients were recalculated with a TOPAS-based Monte Carlo code, thus retrieving information on LET and allowing the estimation of variable RBE. Published NTCP models were adopted to calculate the toxicity risk for hypothyroidism, heart valve defects, coronary heart disease and lung fibrosis. NTCP was calculated assuming both constant (i.e. 1.1) and variable RBE. The uncertainty associated with individual radiosensitivity was estimated by random sampling α/β values before RBE evaluation. RESULTS Variable RBE had a minor impact on hypothyroidism risk for 7 patients, while it led to significant increase for the remaining three (+24% risk maximum increase). Lung fibrosis was slightly affected by variable RBE, with a maximum increase of ≅ 1%. This was similar for heart valve dysfunction, with the exception of one patient showing an about 10% risk increase, which could be explained by means of large heart volume and D1 increase. DISCUSSION The use of NTCP models allows for identifying those patients associated with a higher toxicity risk. For those patients, it might be worth including variable RBE in plan evaluation.
Collapse
|
8
|
de Jong BA, Battinelli C, Free J, Wagenaar D, Engwall E, Janssens G, Langendijk JA, Korevaar EW, Both S. Spot scanning proton arc therapy reduces toxicity in oropharyngeal cancer patients. Med Phys 2023; 50:1305-1317. [PMID: 36373893 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16098] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/26/2021] [Revised: 07/28/2022] [Accepted: 10/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton arc technology has recently shown dosimetric gains for various treatment indications. The increased number of beams and energy layers (ELs) in proton arc plans, increases the degrees of freedom in plan optimization and thereby flexibility to spare dose in organs at risk (OARs). A relationship exists between dosimetric plan quality, delivery efficiency, the number of ELs -and beams in a proton arc plan. PURPOSE This work aims to investigate the effect of the number of beams and ELs in a proton arc plan, on toxicity and delivery time for oropharyngeal cancer patients (OPC) selected for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) based on the Dutch model-based approach. METHODS The EL reduction algorithm iteratively selects ELs from beams equidistantly spaced over a 360° arc. The beams in the final plan may contain multiple ELs, making them suited for static delivery on the studied treatment machine. The produced plans can therefore be called "step and shoot" proton arc plans. The number of beams and ELs were varied to determine the relationship with the planning cost function value, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and delivery time. Proton arc plans with robust target coverage and optimal energy layer reduction (ELR) settings to reduce NTCP, were generated for 10 OPC patients. Proton arc plans were compared to clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and IMPT plans in terms of integral dose, OAR dose, NTCP for xerostomia and dysphagia and delivery time. Furthermore, dose-weighted average linear energy transfer (LETd ) distributions were compared between the IMPT and proton arc plans. A dry run delivery of a plan containing 20 beams and 360 ELs was performed to evaluate delivery time and accuracy. RESULTS We found 360 ELs distributed over 30 beams generated proton arc plans with near minimal expected plan toxicity. Relative to corresponding IMPT and VMAT plans, an average reduction of 21 ± 3% and 58 ± 10% in integral dose was observed. D m e a n $_{mean}$ was reduced most in the pharyngeal constrictor muscle (PCM) medius structure, with on average 9.0 ± 4.2 Gy(RBE) (p = 0.0002) compared to the clinical IMPT plans. The average NTCP for grade≥2 and grade≥3 xerostomia at 6 months after treatment significantly decreased with 4.7 ± 1.8% (p = 0.002) and 1.7 ± 0.8% (p = 0.002), respectively, while the average NTCP for grade≥2 and grade≥3 dysphagia decreased with 4.4 ± 2.9% (p = 0.002) and 0.9 ± 0.4% (p = 0.002), respectively, increasing the benefit of protons relative to VMAT. For a "step and shoot" proton arc delivery with auto beam sequencing the estimated delivery time is 11 min, similar to the delivery time of a 6-field IMPT treatment. Gamma analysis between the planned and delivered dose distribution resulted in a 99.99% pass rate using 1mm/1% dose difference/distance to agreement criteria. CONCLUSIONS "Step and shoot" proton arc demonstrates potential to further reduce toxicity compared to IMPT and VMAT in OPC treatment. By employing 360 ELs and 30 beams in the proposed ELR method, delivery time can reach clinically acceptable levels without compromising plan toxicity when automatic beam sequencing is available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bas A de Jong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jeffrey Free
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Dirk Wagenaar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Erik Engwall
- Research and Development, RaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Guillaume Janssens
- Research and Development, Ion Beam Applications SA, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Erik W Korevaar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Stefan Both
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Youssef I, Yoon J, Mohamed N, Zakeri K, Press RH, Yu Y, Kang JJ, Wong RJ, Tuttle RM, Shaha A, Sherman E, Lee NY. Outcomes and Toxicities of Nonmedullary Thyroid Tumors Treated with Proton Beam Radiation Therapy. Int J Part Ther 2022; 9:20-30. [PMID: 36060412 PMCID: PMC9415751 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-22-00005.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2022] [Accepted: 05/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Proton therapy is an emerging therapy for several malignancies owing to its favorable therapeutic ratio. There are very limited data on the use of proton therapy in the management of thyroid carcinoma. Our objective was to review the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of proton therapy for patients with thyroid cancer treated to the head and neck. Methods From our institution's proton database from 2012 to 2021, we identified 22 patients with thyroid cancer treated with proton beam therapy. We evaluated outcomes and toxicities. Results Median follow-up was 26 months. Of the 22 patients, 50% were female. The mean age was 65 years. Three patients had anaplastic cancer; 13, papillary carcinoma; 2, follicular carcinoma; and 2, poorly differentiated carcinoma. Forty-six percent had T4 disease. Primary targets were the central neck compartment, level VI, and upper mediastinum. Radiation dose was 60 GyRBE adjuvantly, and 70 GyRBE for gross disease (range, 6000-7600 GyRBE). Eight patients underwent upfront adjuvant radiation, and 3 received definitive radiation for unresectable disease upfront. Eleven patients received either salvage or palliative radiation. Fifty-nine percent of patients had extrathyroidal extension, and 64% of patients had gross disease in the neck before treatment. Fifty percent of patients had metastatic disease before treatment. Sixteen patients received concurrent chemotherapy, 63% of these patients received doxorubicin. For all patients, 1-year local regional recurrence (LRR) was 0%, and overall survival (OS) was 90%. Acute grade 3+ toxicities occurred in 27% of patients, the most frequent being dermatitis (27%). Three patients required a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube after radiation therapy (RT), 2 owing to progression. There were no grade 4+ toxicities. Conclusions Proton therapy for thyroid cancer appears feasible and effective with minimal toxicities. Prospective studies comparing proton therapy with intensity-modulated RT, to evaluate the clinical efficacy of using proton therapy to reduce toxicities in patients undergoing radiation for thyroid cancer, are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irini Youssef
- Department of Radiation Oncology, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, NY, USA
| | - Jennifer Yoon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Nader Mohamed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Kaveh Zakeri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Yao Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jung Julie Kang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Richard J. Wong
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - R. Michael Tuttle
- Department of Endocrinology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ashok Shaha
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Eric Sherman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nancy Y. Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Loap P, Orlandi E, De Marzi L, Vitolo V, Barcellini A, Iannalfi A, Dendale R, Kirova Y, Mirandola A. Cardiotoxicity model-based patient selection for Hodgkin lymphoma proton therapy. Acta Oncol 2022; 61:979-986. [PMID: 35668710 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2022.2084639] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable hematological malignancy. Consolidation radiation therapy techniques have made significant progresses to improve organ-at-risk sparing in order to reduce late radiation-induced toxicity. Recent technical breakthroughs notably include intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), which has demonstrated a major dosimetric benefit at the cardiac level for mediastinal HL patients. However, its implementation in clinical practice is still challenging, notably due to the limited access to proton therapy facilities. In this context, the purpose of this study was to estimate the benefit of IMPT for HL proton therapy for diverse cardiac adverse events and to propose a general frame for mediastinal HL patient selection strategy for IMPT based on cardiotoxicity reduction, patient clinical factors, and IMPT treatment availability. MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective dosimetric study included 30 mediastinal HL patients treated with VMAT. IMPT plans were generated on the initial simulation scans. Dose to the heart, to the left ventricle and to the valves were retrieved to calculate the relative risk (RR) of ischemic heart disease (IHD), congestive heart failure (CHF) and valvular disease (VD). Composite relative risk reduction (cRRR) of late cardiotoxicity, between VMAT and IMPT, were calculated as the weighted mean of relative risk reduction for IHD, CHF and VD, calculated across a wide range of cardiovascular risk factor combinations. The proportion of mediastinal HL patients who could benefit from IMPT was estimated in European countries, based on the country population and on the number of active gantries, to propose country-specific cRRR thresholds for patient selection. RESULTS Compared with VMAT, IMPT significantly reduced average mean doses to the heart (2.36 Gy vs 0.99 Gy, p < 0.01), to the left ventricle (0.67 Gy vs 0.03, p < 0.01) and to the valves (1.29 Gy vs. 0.06, p < 0.01). For a HL patient without cardiovascular risk factor other than anthracycline-based chemotherapy, the relative risks of late cardiovascular complications were significantly lower after IMPT compared with VMAT for ischemic heart disease (1.07 vs 1.17, p < 0.01), for congestive heart failure (2.84 vs. 3.00, p < 0.01), and for valvular disease (1.01 vs. 1.06, p < 0.01). The median cRRR of cardiovascular adverse events with IMPT was 4.8%, ranging between 0.1% and 30.5%, depending on the extent of radiation fields and on the considered cardiovascular risk factors. The estimated proportion of HL patients currently treatable with IMPT in European countries with proton therapy facilities ranged between 8.0% and 100% depending on the country, corresponding to cRRR thresholds ranging from 24.0% to 0.0%. CONCLUSION While a statistically significant clinical benefit is theoretically expected for ischemic heart disease, cardiac heart failure and valvular disease for mediastinal HL patients with IMPT, the overall cardiotoxicity risk reduction is notable only for a minority of patients. In the context of limited IMPT availability, this study proposed a general model-based selection approach for mediastinal HL patient based on calculated cardiotoxicity reduction, taking into consideration patient clinical characteristics and IMPT facility availability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pierre Loap
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France.,Centre de Protonthérapie (CPO), Institut Curie, Orsay, France.,Radiation Oncology Clinical Department, Centro Nazionale di Adronterapia Oncologica (CNAO), Pavia, Italia
| | - Ester Orlandi
- Radiation Oncology Clinical Department, Centro Nazionale di Adronterapia Oncologica (CNAO), Pavia, Italia
| | - Ludovic De Marzi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France.,Centre de Protonthérapie (CPO), Institut Curie, Orsay, France
| | - Viviana Vitolo
- Radiation Oncology Clinical Department, Centro Nazionale di Adronterapia Oncologica (CNAO), Pavia, Italia
| | - Amelia Barcellini
- Radiation Oncology Clinical Department, Centro Nazionale di Adronterapia Oncologica (CNAO), Pavia, Italia
| | - Alberto Iannalfi
- Radiation Oncology Clinical Department, Centro Nazionale di Adronterapia Oncologica (CNAO), Pavia, Italia
| | - Rémi Dendale
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France.,Centre de Protonthérapie (CPO), Institut Curie, Orsay, France
| | - Youlia Kirova
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France.,Centre de Protonthérapie (CPO), Institut Curie, Orsay, France
| | - Alfredo Mirandola
- Radiation Oncology Clinical Department, Centro Nazionale di Adronterapia Oncologica (CNAO), Pavia, Italia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Burnet NG, Mee T, Gaito S, Kirkby NF, Aitkenhead AH, Anandadas CN, Aznar MC, Barraclough LH, Borst G, Charlwood FC, Clarke M, Colaco RJ, Crellin AM, Defourney NN, Hague CJ, Harris M, Henthorn NT, Hopkins KI, Hwang E, Ingram SP, Kirkby KJ, Lee LW, Lines D, Lingard Z, Lowe M, Mackay RI, McBain CA, Merchant MJ, Noble DJ, Pan S, Price JM, Radhakrishna G, Reboredo-Gil D, Salem A, Sashidharan S, Sitch P, Smith E, Smith EAK, Taylor MJ, Thomson DJ, Thorp NJ, Underwood TSA, Warmenhoven JW, Wylie JP, Whitfield G. Estimating the percentage of patients who might benefit from proton beam therapy instead of X-ray radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2022; 95:20211175. [PMID: 35220723 PMCID: PMC10993980 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20211175] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2021] [Revised: 01/11/2022] [Accepted: 01/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES High-energy Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) commenced in England in 2018 and NHS England commissions PBT for 1.5% of patients receiving radical radiotherapy. We sought expert opinion on the level of provision. METHODS Invitations were sent to 41 colleagues working in PBT, most at one UK centre, to contribute by completing a spreadsheet. 39 responded: 23 (59%) completed the spreadsheet; 16 (41%) declined, arguing that clinical outcome data are lacking, but joined six additional site-specialist oncologists for two consensus meetings. The spreadsheet was pre-populated with incidence data from Cancer Research UK and radiotherapy use data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. 'Mechanisms of Benefit' of reduced growth impairment, reduced toxicity, dose escalation and reduced second cancer risk were examined. RESULTS The most reliable figure for percentage of radical radiotherapy patients likely to benefit from PBT was that agreed by 95% of the 23 respondents at 4.3%, slightly larger than current provision. The median was 15% (range 4-92%) and consensus median 13%. The biggest estimated potential benefit was from reducing toxicity, median benefit to 15% (range 4-92%), followed by dose escalation median 3% (range 0 to 47%); consensus values were 12 and 3%. Reduced growth impairment and reduced second cancer risk were calculated to benefit 0.5% and 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS The most secure estimate of percentage benefit was 4.3% but insufficient clinical outcome data exist for confident estimates. The study supports the NHS approach of using the evidence base and developing it through randomised trials, non-randomised studies and outcomes tracking. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Less is known about the percentage of patients who may benefit from PBT than is generally acknowledged. Expert opinion varies widely. Insufficient clinical outcome data exist to provide robust estimates. Considerable further work is needed to address this, including international collaboration; much is already underway but will take time to provide mature data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil G Burnet
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Thomas Mee
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Simona Gaito
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Norman F Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Adam H Aitkenhead
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Carmel N Anandadas
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Marianne C Aznar
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Lisa H Barraclough
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Gerben Borst
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Frances C Charlwood
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew Clarke
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Rovel J Colaco
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Adrian M Crellin
- NHS England National Clinical Lead Proton Beam Therapy, Leeds
Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds and St James's
Institute of Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett
Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK, Leeds,
United Kingdom
| | - Noemie N Defourney
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Christina J Hague
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Margaret Harris
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Nicholas T Henthorn
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Kirsten I Hopkins
- International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna International
Centre, Vienna,
Austria
| | - E Hwang
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Radiation
Oncology Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia and
Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sam P Ingram
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Karen J Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Lip W Lee
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - David Lines
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Zoe Lingard
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Matthew Lowe
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ranald I Mackay
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Catherine A McBain
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Merchant
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - David J Noble
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Edinburgh Cancer Centre,
Western General Hospital,
Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Shermaine Pan
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - James M Price
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | | | - David Reboredo-Gil
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ahmed Salem
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | | | - Peter Sitch
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ed Smith
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Foundation
Trust, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Edward AK Smith
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Taylor
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - David J Thomson
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Nicola J Thorp
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Tracy SA Underwood
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - John W Warmenhoven
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - James P Wylie
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Gillian Whitfield
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
In Reply to Sari and Yazici. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 112:1291-1293. [PMID: 35286886 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.12.168] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2021] [Accepted: 12/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
13
|
Vai A, Molinelli S, Rossi E, Iacovelli NA, Magro G, Cavallo A, Pignoli E, Rancati T, Mirandola A, Russo S, Ingargiola R, Vischioni B, Bonora M, Ronchi S, Ciocca M, Orlandi E. Proton Radiation Therapy for Nasopharyngeal Cancer Patients: Dosimetric and NTCP Evaluation Supporting Clinical Decision. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14051109. [PMID: 35267415 PMCID: PMC8909055 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14051109] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2022] [Revised: 02/09/2022] [Accepted: 02/18/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
(1) Background: we proposed an integrated strategy to support clinical allocation of nasopharyngeal patients between proton and photon radiotherapy. (2) Methods: intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans were optimized for 50 consecutive nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and differences in dose and normal tissue complication probability (ΔNTCPx-p) for 16 models were calculated. Patient eligibility for IMPT was assessed using a model-based selection (MBS) strategy following the results for 7/16 models describing the most clinically relevant endpoints, applying a model-specific ΔNTCPx-p threshold (15% to 5% depending on the severity of the complication) and a composite threshold (35%). In addition, a comprehensive toxicity score (CTS) was defined as the weighted sum of all 16 ΔNTCPx-p, where weights follow a clinical rationale. (3) Results: Dose deviations were in favor of IMPT (ΔDmean ≥ 14% for cord, esophagus, brainstem, and glottic larynx). The risk of toxicity significantly decreased for xerostomia (-12.5%), brain necrosis (-2.3%), mucositis (-3.2%), tinnitus (-8.6%), hypothyroidism (-9.3%), and trismus (-5.4%). There were 40% of the patients that resulted as eligible for IMPT, with a greater advantage for T3-T4 staging. Significantly different CTS were observed in patients qualifying for IMPT. (4) Conclusions: The MBS strategy successfully drives the clinical identification of NPC patients, who are most likely to benefit from IMPT. CTS summarizes well the expected global gain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandro Vai
- Radiotherapy Department, Center for National Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (S.M.); (E.R.); (G.M.); (S.R.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (M.B.); (S.R.); (M.C.); (E.O.)
- Correspondence: (A.V.); (N.A.I.); Tel.: +39-0382-078-505 (A.V.)
| | - Silvia Molinelli
- Radiotherapy Department, Center for National Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (S.M.); (E.R.); (G.M.); (S.R.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (M.B.); (S.R.); (M.C.); (E.O.)
| | - Eleonora Rossi
- Radiotherapy Department, Center for National Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (S.M.); (E.R.); (G.M.); (S.R.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (M.B.); (S.R.); (M.C.); (E.O.)
| | - Nicola Alessandro Iacovelli
- Radiotherapy Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (INT), 20133 Milan, Italy; (A.C.); (E.P.); (T.R.); (A.M.)
- Correspondence: (A.V.); (N.A.I.); Tel.: +39-0382-078-505 (A.V.)
| | - Giuseppe Magro
- Radiotherapy Department, Center for National Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (S.M.); (E.R.); (G.M.); (S.R.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (M.B.); (S.R.); (M.C.); (E.O.)
| | - Anna Cavallo
- Radiotherapy Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (INT), 20133 Milan, Italy; (A.C.); (E.P.); (T.R.); (A.M.)
| | - Emanuele Pignoli
- Radiotherapy Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (INT), 20133 Milan, Italy; (A.C.); (E.P.); (T.R.); (A.M.)
| | - Tiziana Rancati
- Radiotherapy Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (INT), 20133 Milan, Italy; (A.C.); (E.P.); (T.R.); (A.M.)
| | - Alfredo Mirandola
- Radiotherapy Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (INT), 20133 Milan, Italy; (A.C.); (E.P.); (T.R.); (A.M.)
| | - Stefania Russo
- Radiotherapy Department, Center for National Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (S.M.); (E.R.); (G.M.); (S.R.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (M.B.); (S.R.); (M.C.); (E.O.)
| | - Rossana Ingargiola
- Radiotherapy Department, Center for National Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (S.M.); (E.R.); (G.M.); (S.R.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (M.B.); (S.R.); (M.C.); (E.O.)
| | - Barbara Vischioni
- Radiotherapy Department, Center for National Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (S.M.); (E.R.); (G.M.); (S.R.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (M.B.); (S.R.); (M.C.); (E.O.)
| | - Maria Bonora
- Radiotherapy Department, Center for National Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (S.M.); (E.R.); (G.M.); (S.R.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (M.B.); (S.R.); (M.C.); (E.O.)
| | - Sara Ronchi
- Radiotherapy Department, Center for National Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (S.M.); (E.R.); (G.M.); (S.R.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (M.B.); (S.R.); (M.C.); (E.O.)
| | - Mario Ciocca
- Radiotherapy Department, Center for National Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (S.M.); (E.R.); (G.M.); (S.R.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (M.B.); (S.R.); (M.C.); (E.O.)
| | - Ester Orlandi
- Radiotherapy Department, Center for National Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (S.M.); (E.R.); (G.M.); (S.R.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (M.B.); (S.R.); (M.C.); (E.O.)
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Normal Tissue Complication Probability Modelling for Toxicity Prediction and Patient Selection in Proton Beam Therapy to the Central Nervous System: A Literature Review. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2022; 34:e225-e237. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.12.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2021] [Revised: 11/22/2021] [Accepted: 12/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
15
|
Loap P, De Marzi L, Almeida CE, Barcellini A, Bradley J, de Santis MC, Dendale R, Jimenez R, Orlandi E, Kirova Y. Hadrontherapy techniques for breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2021; 169:103574. [PMID: 34958916 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103574] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2021] [Revised: 12/22/2021] [Accepted: 12/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Radiotherapy plays a key role in breast cancer treatment, and recent technical advances have been made to improve the therapeutic window by limiting the risk of radiation-induced toxicity or by increasing tumor control. Hadrontherapy is a form a radiotherapy relying on particle beams; compared with photon beams, particle beams have specific physical, radiobiological and immunological properties, which can be valuable in diverse clinical situations. To date, available hadrontherapy techniques for breast cancer irradiation include proton therapy, carbon ion radiation therapy, fast neutron therapy and boron neutron capture therapy. This review analyzes the current rationale and level of evidence for each hadrontherapy technique for breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pierre Loap
- Proton Therapy Center, Institut Curie, Orsay, France.
| | | | - Carlos Eduardo Almeida
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | | | - Julie Bradley
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, United States
| | | | - Remi Dendale
- Proton Therapy Center, Institut Curie, Orsay, France
| | - Rachel Jimenez
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Ester Orlandi
- National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy, Pavia, Italy
| | - Youlia Kirova
- Proton Therapy Center, Institut Curie, Orsay, France
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
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: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [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
|
17
|
Zientara N, Giles E, Le H, Short M. A scoping review of patient selection methods for proton therapy. J Med Radiat Sci 2021; 69:108-121. [PMID: 34476905 PMCID: PMC8892419 DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2021] [Revised: 07/08/2021] [Accepted: 08/07/2021] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
The aim was to explore various national and international clinical decision‐making tools and dose comparison methods used for selecting cancer patients for proton versus X‐ray radiation therapy. To address this aim, a literature search using defined scoping review methods was performed in Medline and Embase databases as well as grey literature. Articles published between 1 January 2015 and 4 August 2020 and those that clearly stated methods of proton versus X‐ray therapy patient selection and those published in English were eligible for inclusion. In total, 321 studies were identified of which 49 articles met the study’s inclusion criteria representing 13 countries. Six different clinical decision‐making tools and 14 dose comparison methods were identified, demonstrating variability within countries and internationally. Proton therapy was indicated for all paediatric patients except those with lymphoma and re‐irradiation where individualised model‐based selection was required. The most commonly reported patient selection tools included the Normal Tissue Complication Probability model, followed by cost‐effectiveness modelling and dosimetry comparison. Model‐based selection methods were most commonly applied for head and neck clinical indications in adult cohorts (48% of studies). While no ‘Gold Standard’ currently exists for proton therapy patient selection with variations evidenced globally, some of the patient selection methods identified in this review can be used to inform future practice in Australia. As literature was not identified from all countries where proton therapy centres are available, further research is needed to evaluate patient selection methods in these jurisdictions for a comprehensive overview.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Zientara
- UniSA Cancer Research Institute, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Eileen Giles
- UniSA Cancer Research Institute, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Hien Le
- UniSA Cancer Research Institute, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Michala Short
- UniSA Cancer Research Institute, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Loizeau N, Fabiano S, Papp D, Stützer K, Jakobi A, Bandurska-Luque A, Troost EGC, Richter C, Unkelbach J. Optimal Allocation of Proton Therapy Slots in Combined Proton-Photon Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 111:196-207. [PMID: 33848609 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.03.054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2020] [Revised: 03/02/2021] [Accepted: 03/30/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Proton therapy is a limited resource that is not available to all patients who may benefit from it. We investigated combined proton-photon treatments, in which some fractions are delivered with protons and the remaining fractions with photons, as an approach to maximize the benefit of limited proton therapy resources at a population level. METHODS AND MATERIALS To quantify differences in normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP) between protons and photons, we considered a cohort of 45 patients with head and neck cancer for whom intensity modulated radiation therapy and intensity modulated proton therapy plans were previously created, in combination with NTCP models for xerostomia and dysphagia considered in the Netherlands for proton patient selection. Assuming limited availability of proton slots, we developed methods to optimally assign proton fractions in combined proton-photon treatments to minimize the average NTCP on a population level. The combined treatments were compared with patient selection strategies in which patients are assigned to single-modality proton or photon treatments. RESULTS There is a benefit of combined proton-photon treatments compared with patient selection, owing to the nonlinearity of NTCP functions; that is, the initial proton fractions are the most beneficial, whereas additional proton fractions have a decreasing benefit when a flatter part of the NTCP curve is reached. This effect was small for the patient cohort and NTCP models considered, but it may be larger if dose-response relationships are better known. In addition, when proton slots are limited, patient selection methods face a trade-off between leaving slots unused and blocking slots for future patients who may have a larger benefit. Combined proton-photon treatments with flexible proton slot assignment provide a method to make optimal use of all available resources. CONCLUSIONS Combined proton-photon treatments allow for better use of limited proton therapy resources. The benefit over patient selection schemes depends on the NTCP models and the dose differences between protons and photons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolas Loizeau
- Physics Institute, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
| | - Silvia Fabiano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Dávid Papp
- Department of Mathematics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
| | - Kristin Stützer
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Annika Jakobi
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Anna Bandurska-Luque
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Christian Richter
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Jan Unkelbach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Thariat J, Calugaru V, Aloi D, Maingon P, Grégoire V. Head and neck proton therapy in France: A missed opportunity or a challenge in front of us? Cancer Radiother 2021; 25:537-544. [PMID: 34272183 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.06.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2021] [Revised: 06/22/2021] [Accepted: 06/24/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
Following major advances of the best of photon-techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and, to arrive soon, magnetic resonance (MR)-linac radiotherapy, there are still substantial opportunities in the treatment of head and neck cancers to further reduce the toxicity burden. Proton therapy represents another attractive option in this high-quality and highly competitive precision radiotherapy landscape. Proton therapy holds promises to reduce toxicities and to escalate the dose in radioresistant cases or cases where dose distribution is not satisfactory with photons. However, the selection of patients for proton therapy needs to be done using evidence-based medicine to build arguments in favor of personalized precision radiation therapy. Referral to proton therapy versus IMRT or SBRT should be registered (ProtonShare® platform) and envisioned in a formalized clinical research perspective through randomized trials. The use of an enrichment process using a model-based approach should be done to only randomize patients doomed to benefit from proton. To tackle such great opportunities, the French proton therapy challenge is to collaborate at the national and international levels, and to demonstrate that the extra-costs of treatment are worth clinically and economically in the short, mid, and long-term. In parallel to the clinical developments, there are still preclinical issues to be tackled (e.g., proton FLASH, mini-beams, combination with immunotherapy), for which the French Radiotransnet network offers a unique platform. The current article provides a personal view of the challenges and opportunities with a focus on clinical research and randomized trial requirements as well as the needs for strong collaborations at the national and international levels for PT in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck to date.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Thariat
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre François-Baclesse, Caen, France; Laboratoire de physique Corpusculaire IN2P3/ENSICAEN/CNRS UMR 6534, Normandie Université, Caen, France; GORTEC - Intergroupe ORL, Tours, France.
| | - V Calugaru
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France
| | - D Aloi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, Côte d'Azur University, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
| | - P Maingon
- Department of Oncology Radiotherapy, CLIP (2) Galilée, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie (IUC), Sorbonne University, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France
| | - V Grégoire
- Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Léon-Bérard, Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Dionisi F, Widesott L, Van Vulpen M, Fuller CD, Frondizi R, Meneguzzo M, Blanchard P, Amichetti M, Sanguineti G. Methodologies to Increase the Level of Evidence of Real-life Proton Therapy in Head and Neck Tumors. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:328-338. [PMID: 34285959 PMCID: PMC8270108 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00051.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2020] [Accepted: 02/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
This review aims to present and assess available and new methodologies to increase the clinical evidence of proton therapy data for patients with head and neck cancer. Despite the increasing number of scientific reports showing the feasibility and effectiveness of proton therapy in head and neck cancer, clinical evidence on the potential benefits of its use remains low for several reasons. In this article, the pros and cons of consolidated and new methodologies in this setting such as randomized clinical trials, the model-based approach, and the use of prospective multicentric registries will be detailed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Dionisi
- Proton Therapy Unit, Department of Oncology, Azienda Provinciale per I Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Lamberto Widesott
- Proton Therapy Unit, Department of Oncology, Azienda Provinciale per I Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy
| | | | - Clifton David Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Rocco Frondizi
- Department of Management and Law, Tor Vergata University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Marco Meneguzzo
- Department of Management and Law, Tor Vergata University of Rome, Rome, Italy.,Centre for Organisational Research, Health and Public Management, Università della Svizzera Italiana (USI), Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Pierre Blanchard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France
| | - Maurizio Amichetti
- Proton Therapy Unit, Department of Oncology, Azienda Provinciale per I Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Sanguineti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Stieb S, Lee A, van Dijk LV, Frank S, Fuller CD, Blanchard P. NTCP Modeling of Late Effects for Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:95-107. [PMID: 34285939 PMCID: PMC8270107 DOI: 10.14338/20-00092] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2020] [Accepted: 02/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Sonja Stieb
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Center for Radiation Oncology KSA-KSB, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland
| | - Anna Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lisanne V. van Dijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center–Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Steven Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Clifton David Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Pierre Blanchard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Radiotherapy, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Universite Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Sharabiani M, Clementel E, Andratschke N, Collette L, Fortpied C, Grégoire V, Overgaard J, Willmann J, Hurkmans C. Independent external validation using the EORTC HNCG-ROG 1219 DAHANCA trial data of NTCP models for acute oral mucositis. Radiother Oncol 2021; 161:35-39. [PMID: 33872641 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.04.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2020] [Revised: 04/07/2021] [Accepted: 04/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To externally validate previously published Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) models developed by separate teams for grade 3 oral mucositis (g3OM). MATERIALS AND METHODS Two models were validated: a logistic model, based on 144 head and neck cancer (HNC) patients receiving induction chemotherapy followed by chemo-IMRT; a multivariable logistic model for prediction of g3OM for 253 patients receiving radical treatment for the head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The EORTC HNCG-ROG 1219 DAHANCA trial dataset, consisting of 169 patients was used as the validation cohort. This cohort was treated with accelerated fractionated chemo-IMRT, with/without the hypoxic radiosensitizer Nimorazole for HNSCC. External validity was assessed using the scaled Brier score. Calibration was assessed in terms of calibration curves as well as measures of mean and weak calibration. Hosmer-Lemeshow was used for goodness-of-fit test. Discrimination was calculated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC-ROC). RESULTS The prevalence of g3OM in the validation cohort (35.5%) was similar to that of two development cohorts, i.e. 38.7% and 31.9% for Bhide logistic and Otter multivariable logistic models respectively. The scaled Brier scores showed good overall model performance. Perfect calibration was observed in the prevalence range of 20% to 40%. AUC-ROC was acceptable in external validation (0.67). The Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed good agreement between predicted and observed outcomes for two models. CONCLUSION The NTCP models were validated and lead to valid predictions in a wide range of diverse treatment techniques and patient characteristics, also when Nimorazole is added as hypoxic radiosensitizer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - N Andratschke
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zurich, Switzerland
| | - L Collette
- Department of Biostatistics, International Drug Development Institute, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
| | | | - V Grégoire
- Radiation Oncology Department, Léon Bérard Cancer Center, Lyon, France
| | - J Overgaard
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - J Willmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zurich, Switzerland
| | - C Hurkmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Van den Bosch L, van der Schaaf A, van der Laan HP, Hoebers FJ, Wijers OB, van den Hoek JG, Moons KG, Reitsma JB, Steenbakkers RJ, Schuit E, Langendijk JA. Comprehensive toxicity risk profiling in radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: A new concept for individually optimised treatment. Radiother Oncol 2021; 157:147-154. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.01.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2020] [Revised: 01/15/2021] [Accepted: 01/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
|
24
|
Dutz A, Lühr A, Agolli L, Bütof R, Valentini C, Troost EG, Baumann M, Vermeren X, Geismar D, Lamba N, Lebow ES, Bussière M, Daly JE, Bussière MR, Krause M, Timmermann B, Shih HA, Löck S. Modelling of late side-effects following cranial proton beam therapy. Radiother Oncol 2021; 157:15-23. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.01.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2020] [Revised: 01/04/2021] [Accepted: 01/05/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
|
25
|
Xu W, Huang SH, Su J, Gudi S, O'Sullivan B. Statistical fundamentals on cancer research for clinicians: Working with your statisticians. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2021; 27:75-84. [PMID: 33532634 PMCID: PMC7829109 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2021.01.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2020] [Revised: 01/07/2021] [Accepted: 01/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To facilitate understanding statistical principles and methods for clinicians involved in cancer research. METHODS An overview of study design is provided on cancer research for both observational and clinical trials addressing study objectives and endpoints, superiority tests, non-inferiority and equivalence design, and sample size calculation. The principles of statistical models and tests including contemporary standard methods of analysis and evaluation are discussed. Finally, some statistical pitfalls frequently evident in clinical and translational studies in cancer are discussed. RESULTS We emphasize the practical aspects of study design (superiority vs non-inferiority vs equivalence study) and assumptions underpinning power calculations and sample size estimation. The differences between relative risk, odds ratio, and hazard ratio, understanding outcome endpoints, purposes of interim analysis, and statistical modeling to minimize confounding effects and bias are also discussed. CONCLUSION Proper design and correctly constructed statistical models are critical for the success of cancer research studies. Most statistical inaccuracies can be minimized by following essential statistical principles and guidelines to improve quality in research studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Xu
- Department of Biostatistics, The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University of Toronto, Canada
- Biostatistics Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Shao Hui Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University of Toronto, Canada
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Jie Su
- Department of Biostatistics, The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Shivakumar Gudi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Brian O'Sullivan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University of Toronto, Canada
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University of Toronto, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Paganetti H, Beltran C, Both S, Dong L, Flanz J, Furutani K, Grassberger C, Grosshans DR, Knopf AC, Langendijk JA, Nystrom H, Parodi K, Raaymakers BW, Richter C, Sawakuchi GO, Schippers M, Shaitelman SF, Teo BKK, Unkelbach J, Wohlfahrt P, Lomax T. Roadmap: proton therapy physics and biology. Phys Med Biol 2021; 66. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/abcd16] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2020] [Accepted: 11/23/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
|
27
|
Marteinsdottir M, Wang CC, McNamara A, Depauw N, Shin J, Paganetti H. The impact of variable relative biological effectiveness in proton therapy for left-sided breast cancer when estimating normal tissue complications in the heart and lung. Phys Med Biol 2021; 66:035023. [PMID: 33522498 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/abd230] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical impact of relative biological effectiveness (RBE) variations in proton beam scanning treatment (PBS) for left-sided breast cancer versus the assumption of a fixed RBE of 1.1, particularly in the context of comparisons with photon-based three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Ten patients receiving radiation treatment to the whole breast/chest wall and regional lymph nodes were selected for each modality. For PBS, the dose distributions were re-calculated with both a fixed RBE and a variable RBE using an empirical RBE model. Dosimetric indices based on dose-volume histogram analysis were calculated for the entire heart wall, left anterior descending artery (LAD) and left lung. Furthermore, normal tissue toxicity probabilities for different endpoints were evaluated. The results show that applying a variable RBE significantly increases the RBE-weighted dose and consequently the calculated dosimetric indices increases for all organs compared to a fixed RBE. The mean dose to the heart and the maximum dose to the LAD and the left lung are significantly lower for PBS assuming a fixed RBE compared to 3DCRT. However, no statistically significant difference is seen when a variable RBE is applied. For a fixed RBE, lung toxicities are significantly lower compared to 3DCRT but when applying a variable RBE, no statistically significant differences are noted. A disadvantage is seen for VMAT over both PBS and 3DCRT. One-to-one plan comparison on 8 patients between PBS and 3DCRT shows similar results. We conclude that dosimetric analysis for all organs and toxicity estimation for the left lung might be underestimated when applying a fixed RBE for protons. Potential RBE variations should therefore be considered as uncertainty bands in outcome analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Marteinsdottir
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America. Faculty of Physical Sciences, University of Iceland, Dunhaga 5, IS-107 Reykjavik, Iceland
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Wen DW, Lin L, Mao YP, Chen CY, Chen FP, Wu CF, Huang XD, Li ZX, Xu SS, Kou J, Yang XL, Ma J, Sun Y, Zhou GQ. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for predicting temporal lobe injury after intensity-modulated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A large registry-based retrospective study from China. Radiother Oncol 2021; 157:99-105. [PMID: 33484752 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.01.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2020] [Revised: 12/09/2020] [Accepted: 01/06/2021] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop predictive models with dosimetric and clinical variables for temporal lobe injury (TLI) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) after intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS Data of 8194 NPC patients who received IMRT-based treatment were retrospectively reviewed. TLI was diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging. Dosimetric factors were selected by penalized regression and machine learning, with area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) calculated. Cox proportional hazards models containing the most predictive dosimetric factor with/without clinical variables were performed. A nomogram was generated as a visualization of Cox regression for predicting TLI-free survival. RESULTS During median follow-up of 66.8 months (interquartile range [IQR] 54.2-82.2 months), 12.1% of patients (989/8194) developed TLI. Median latency from IMRT to TLI was 36 months (IQR 28-47 months). D0.5cc (dose delivered to 0.5-cm3 temporal-lobe volume) was the most predictive dosimetric factor (AUC: 0.799). Tolerance dose for 5% and 50% probabilities to develop TLI in 5 years were 65.06 Gy (95% confidence interval [CI]: 64.19-65.92) and 89.75 Gy (95% CI: 87.39-92.11), respectively. A nomogram comprising age, T stage, and D0.5cc significantly outperformed the model with only D0.5cc in predicting TLI (C-index: 0.78 vs. 0.737 in train set; 0.775 vs. 0.73 in test set; both P < 0.001). The nomogram-defined high-risk group had worse 5-year TLI-free survival. CONCLUSIONS D0.5cc of 65.06 Gy was the tolerance dose of the temporal lobe. Reducing D0.5cc decreased risk of TLI, especially in older patients with advanced T stage. The nomogram could predict TLI precisely and allow individualized follow-up management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dan-Wan Wen
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Li Lin
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Yan-Ping Mao
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Chun-Yan Chen
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Fo-Ping Chen
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Chen-Fei Wu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Xiao-Dan Huang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Zhi-Xuan Li
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Si-Si Xu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Jia Kou
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Xing-Li Yang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Jun Ma
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Ying Sun
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Guan-Qun Zhou
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Behrends C, Haussmann J, Kramer PH, Langendijk JA, Gottschlag H, Geismar D, Budach W, Timmermann B. Model-based comparison of organ at risk protection between VMAT and robustly optimised IMPT plans. Z Med Phys 2020; 31:5-15. [PMID: 33358063 DOI: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2020.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2020] [Revised: 09/07/2020] [Accepted: 09/18/2020] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
The comparison between intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, based on models of normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP), can support the choice of radiation modality. IMPT irradiation plans for 50 patients with head and neck tumours originally treated with photon therapy have been robustly optimised against density and setup uncertainties. The dose distribution has been calculated with a Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm. The comparison of the plans was based on dose-volume parameters in organs at risk (OARs) and NTCP-calculations for xerostomia, sticky saliva, dysphagia and tube feeding using Langendijk's model-based approach. While the dose distribution in the target volumes is similar, the IMPT plans show better protection of OARs. Therefore, it is not the high dose confirmation that constitutes the advantage of protons, but it is the reduction of the mid-to-low dose levels compared to photons. This work investigates to what extent the advantages of proton radiation are beneficial for the patient's post-therapeutic quality of life (QoL). As a result, approximately one third of the patients examined benefit significantly from proton therapy with regard to possible late side effects. Clinical data is needed to confirm the model-based calculations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carina Behrends
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), Essen, Germany; Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany; West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Essen, Germany.
| | - Jan Haussmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - P-H Kramer
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), Essen, Germany; West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Essen, Germany
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Holger Gottschlag
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Dirk Geismar
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), Essen, Germany; Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Wilfried Budach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Beate Timmermann
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), Essen, Germany; West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Essen, Germany; Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Germany
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Cozzi L, Comito T, Loi M, Fogliata A, Franzese C, Franceschini D, Clerici E, Reggiori G, Tomatis S, Scorsetti M. The Potential Role of Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy in Hepatic Carcinoma in Mitigating the Risk of Dose De-Escalation. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2020; 19:1533033820980412. [PMID: 33287650 PMCID: PMC7727039 DOI: 10.1177/1533033820980412] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the role of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients to be treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in a risk-adapted dose prescription regimen. METHODS A cohort of 30 patients was retrospectively selected as "at-risk" of dose de-escalation due to the proximity of the target volumes to dose-limiting healthy structures. IMPT plans were compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) RapidArc (RA) plans. The maximum dose prescription foreseen was 75 Gy in 3 fractions. The dosimetric analysis was performed on several quantitative metrics on the target volumes and organs at risk to identify the relative improvement of IMPT over VMAT and to determine if IMPT could mitigate the need of dose reduction and quantify the consequent potential patient accrual rate for protons. RESULTS IMPT and VMAT plans resulted in equivalent target dose distributions: both could ensure the required coverage for CTV and PTV. Systematic and significant improvements were observed with IMPT for all organs at risk and metrics. An average gain of 9.0 ± 11.6, 8.5 ± 7.7, 5.9 ± 7.1, 4.2 ± 6.4, 8.9 ± 7.1, 6.7 ± 7.5 Gy was found in the near-to-maximum doses for the ribs, chest wall, heart, duodenum, stomach and bowel bag respectively. Twenty patients violated one or more binding constraints with RA, while only 2 with IMPT. For all these patients, some dose de-intensification would have been required to respect the constraints. For photons, the maximum allowed dose ranged from 15.0 to 20.63 Gy per fraction while for the 2 proton cases it would have been 18.75 or 20.63 Gy. CONCLUSION The results of this in-silico planning study suggests that IMPT might result in advantages compared to photon-based VMAT for HCC patients to be treated with ablative SBRT. In particular, the dosimetric characteristics of protons may avoid the need for dose de-escalation in a risk-adapted prescription regimen for those patients with lesions located in proximity of dose-limiting healthy structures. Depending on the selection thresholds, the number of patients eligible for treatment at the full dose can be significantly increased with protons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luca Cozzi
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCSS, Milan-Rozzano, Italy.,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
| | - Tiziana Comito
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCSS, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
| | - Mauro Loi
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCSS, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
| | - Antonella Fogliata
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCSS, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
| | - Ciro Franzese
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCSS, Milan-Rozzano, Italy.,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
| | - Davide Franceschini
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCSS, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
| | - Elena Clerici
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCSS, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
| | - Giacomo Reggiori
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCSS, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
| | - Stefano Tomatis
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCSS, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
| | - Marta Scorsetti
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCSS, Milan-Rozzano, Italy.,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Lin YL. Proton beam therapy of periorbital sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma: Two case reports and review of literature. World J Clin Oncol 2020; 11:655-672. [PMID: 32879851 PMCID: PMC7443830 DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v11.i8.655] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2020] [Revised: 06/11/2020] [Accepted: 07/18/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Sinonasal malignancies are rare but demanding due to complex anatomy, usually late diagnosis, and inconsistent therapy strategy based on multimodality approaches. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the most common histology, with poorer prognosis. In the setting of orbital invasion, an orbital exenteration may be required. However, in case of primary rejection of disfiguring surgery or unresectable disease, proton beam therapy (PBT) should be largely considered, allowing for better sparing of neighboring critical structures and improved outcomes by dose escalation. CASE SUMMARY A 62-year-old male presented with a recurrent SCC in the nasal septum abutting frontal skull base and bilateral orbits at 7 mo after primary partial nasal amputation. Because of refusal of face-deforming surgery and considerable adverse effects of conventional radiotherapy, the patient underwent a PBT by hyperfractionated accelerated scheme, resulting in complete response and moderate toxicities. After 2 years, a nasal reconstruction was implemented with satisfactory appearance and recurrence-freedom to date. Another patient with an initially extended sinonasal SCC, invading right orbit and facial soft tissue, declined an orbital exenteration and was treated with a normofractionated PBT to the gross tumor and elective cervical lymphatics. The follow-up showed a continuous tumor remission with reasonable late toxicities, such as cataract and telangiectasia on the right. Despite T4a stage and disapproval of concurrent chemotherapy owing to individual choice, both patients still achieved outstanding treatment outcomes with PBT alone. CONCLUSION PBT enabled orbit preservation and excellent tumor control without severe adverse effects on both presented patients with locally advanced sinonasal SCC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yi-Lan Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rinecker Proton Therapy Center, Munich 81371, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Cozzi L, Vanderstraeten R, Fogliata A, Chang FL, Wang PM. The role of a knowledge based dose-volume histogram predictive model in the optimisation of intensity-modulated proton plans for hepatocellular carcinoma patients : Training and validation of a novel commercial system. Strahlenther Onkol 2020; 197:332-342. [PMID: 32676685 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-020-01664-2] [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: 01/15/2020] [Accepted: 06/29/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the performance of a knowledge-based RapidPlan, for optimisation of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans applied to hepatocellular cancer (HCC) patients. METHODS A cohort of 65 patients was retrospectively selected: 50 were used to "train" the model, while the remaining 15 provided independent validation. The performance of the RapidPlan model was benchmarked against manual optimisation and was also compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) photon plans. A subanalysis appraised the performance of the RapidPlan model applied to patients with lesions ≤300 cm3 or larger. Quantitative assessment was based on several metrics derived from the constraints of the NRG-GI003 clinical trial. RESULTS There was an equivalence between manual plans and RapidPlan-optimised IMPT plans, which outperformed the RapidArc plans. The planning dose-volume objectives were met on average for all structures except for D0.5 cm3 ≤30 Gy in the bowels. Limiting the results to the class-solution proton plans (all values in Gy), the data for manual plans vs RapidPlan-based IMPT plans, respectively, showed the following: D99% to the target of 47.5 ± 1.4 vs 47.2 ± 1.2; for organs at risk, the mean dose to the healthy liver was 6.7 ± 3.6 vs 6.7 ± 3.7; the mean dose to the kidneys was 0.2 ± 0.5 vs 0.1 ± 0.2; D0.5 cm3 for the bowels was 33.4 ± 16.4 vs 30.2 ± 16.0; for the stomach was 17.9 ± 19.9 vs 14.9 ± 18.8; for the oesophagus was 17.9 ± 15.1 vs 14.9 ± 13.9; for the spinal cord was 0.5 ± 1.6 vs 0.2 ± 0.7. The model performed similarly for cases with small or large lesions. CONCLUSION A knowledge-based RapidPlan model was trained and validated for IMPT. The results demonstrate that RapidPlan can be trained adequately for IMPT in HCC. The quality of the RapidPlan-based plans is at least equivalent compared to what is achievable with manual planning. RapidPlan also confirmed the potential to optimise the quality of the proton therapy results, thus reducing the impact of operator planning skills on patient results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luca Cozzi
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCSS, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Milan-Rozzano, Italy. .,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Italy.
| | | | - Antonella Fogliata
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCSS, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
| | - Feng-Ling Chang
- Radiation Oncology Department, Asian University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan, Province of China
| | - Po-Ming Wang
- Radiation Oncology Department, Asian University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan, Province of China
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Grant SR, Hutcheson KA, Ye R, Garden AS, Morrison WH, Rosenthal DI, Gunn GB, Fuller C, Phan J, Reddy JP, Moreno AC, Lewin JS, Sturgis EM, Ferrarotto R, Frank SJ. Prospective longitudinal patient-reported outcomes of swallowing following intensity modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer. Radiother Oncol 2020; 148:133-139. [PMID: 32361662 PMCID: PMC9815953 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.04.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2020] [Revised: 04/14/2020] [Accepted: 04/15/2020] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE With an enlarging population of long-term oropharyngeal cancer survivors, dysphagia is an increasingly important toxicity following oropharynx cancer treatment. While lower doses to normal surrounding structures may be achieved with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) compared to photon-based radiation, the clinical benefit is uncertain. METHODS AND MATERIALS Seventy-one patients with stage III/IV oropharyngeal cancer (AJCC 7th edition) undergoing definitive IMPT on a longitudinal prospective cohort study who had completed the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) at pre-specified time points were included. RESULTS The majority of patients had HPV-positive tumors (85.9%) and received bilateral neck radiation (81.4%) with concurrent systemic therapy (61.8%). Mean composite MDADI scores decreased from 88.2 at baseline to 59.6 at treatment week 6, and then increased to 74.4 by follow up week 10, 77.0 by 6 months follow up, 80.5 by 12 months follow up, and 80.1 by 24 months follow up. At baseline, only 5.6% of patients recording a poor composite score (lower than 60), compared to 61.2% at treatment week 6, 19.1% at follow up week 10, 13.0% at 6 months follow up, 13.5% at 1 year follow up, and 11.1% at 2 years follow up. CONCLUSIONS Patient reported outcomes following IMPT for oropharyngeal cancer demonstrates decreased swallowing function at completion of treatment with relatively rapid recovery by 10 weeks follow up and steady improvement through 2 years. The results are comparable to similar longitudinal studies of photon-based radiotherapy for oropharynx cancer, and suggest that IMPT confers no additional excess toxicity related to swallowing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen R. Grant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Katherine A. Hutcheson
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Rong Ye
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Adam S. Garden
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - William H. Morrison
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David I. Rosenthal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - G. Brandon Gunn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - C.D. Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jack Phan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jay P. Reddy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amy C. Moreno
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jan S. Lewin
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Erich M. Sturgis
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Renata Ferrarotto
- Department of Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Generalizability assessment of head and neck cancer NTCP models based on the TRIPOD criteria. Radiother Oncol 2020; 146:143-150. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.02.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2019] [Revised: 02/06/2020] [Accepted: 02/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
|
35
|
Perspectives on the model-based approach to proton therapy trials: A retrospective study of a lung cancer randomized trial. Radiother Oncol 2020; 147:8-14. [PMID: 32224318 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.02.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2019] [Revised: 02/25/2020] [Accepted: 02/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The goal of this study was to assess whether a model-based approach applied retrospectively to a completed randomized controlled trial (RCT) would have significantly altered the selection of patients of the original trial, using the same selection criteria and endpoint for testing the potential clinical benefit of protons compared to photons. METHODS AND MATERIALS A model-based approach, based on three widely used normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for radiation pneumonitis (RP), was applied retrospectively to a completed non-small cell lung cancer RCT (NCT00915005). It was assumed that patients were selected by the model-based approach if their expected ΔNTCP value was above a threshold of 5%. The endpoint chosen matched that of the original trial, the first occurrence of severe (grade ≥3) RP. RESULTS Our analysis demonstrates that NTCP differences between proton and photon therapy treatments may be too small to support a model-based trial approach for lung cancer using RP as the normal tissue endpoint. The analyzed lung trial showed that less than 19% (32/165) of patients enrolled in the completed trial would have been enrolled in a model-based trial, prescribing photon therapy to all other patients. The number of patients enrolled was also found to be dependent on the type of NTCP model used for evaluating RP, with the three models enrolling 3%, 13% or 19% of patients. This result does show limitations in NTCP models which would affect the success of a model-based trial approach. No conclusion regarding the development of RP in patients randomized by the model-based approach could statistically be made. CONCLUSIONS Uncertainties in the outcome models to predict NTCP are the inherent drawback of a model-based approach to clinical trials. The impact of these uncertainties on enrollment in model-based trials depends on the predicted difference between the two treatment arms and on the set threshold for patient stratification. Our analysis demonstrates that NTCP differences between proton and photon therapy treatments may be too small to support a model-based trial approach for specific treatment sites, such as lung cancer, depending on the chosen normal tissue endpoint.
Collapse
|
36
|
Proton therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: A review of the physical and clinical challenges. Radiother Oncol 2020; 147:30-39. [PMID: 32224315 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.03.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2019] [Revised: 02/21/2020] [Accepted: 03/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
The quality of radiation therapy has been shown to significantly influence the outcomes for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients. The results of dosimetric studies suggest that intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) could be of added value for HNSCC by being more effective than intensity-modulated (photon) radiation therapy (IMRT) for reducing side effects of radiation therapy. However, the physical properties of protons make IMPT more sensitive than photons to planning uncertainties. This could potentially have a negative effect on the quality of IMPT planning and delivery. For this review, the three French proton therapy centers collaborated to evaluate the differences between IMRT and IMPT. The review explored the effects of these uncertainties and their management for developing a robust and optimized IMPT treatment delivery plan to achieve clinical outcomes that are superior to those for IMRT. We also provide practical suggestions for the management of HNSCC carcinoma with IMPT. Because metallic dental implants can increase range uncertainties (3-10%), patient preparation for IMPT may require more systematic removal of in-field alien material than is done for IMRT. Multi-energy CT may be an alternative to calculate more accurately the dose distribution. The practical aspects that we describe are essential to guarantee optimal quality in radiation therapy in both model-based and randomized clinical trials.
Collapse
|
37
|
Patient selection for proton therapy: a radiobiological fuzzy Markov model incorporating robust plan analysis. Phys Eng Sci Med 2020; 43:493-503. [PMID: 32524433 DOI: 10.1007/s13246-020-00849-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2019] [Accepted: 02/01/2020] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
While proton therapy can offer increased sparing of healthy tissue compared with X-ray therapy, it can be difficult to predict whether a benefit can be expected for an individual patient. Predictive modelling may aid in this respect. However, the predictions of these models can be affected by uncertainties in radiobiological model parameters and in planned dose. The aim of this work is to present a Markov model that incorporates these uncertainties to compare clinical outcomes for individualised proton and X-ray therapy treatments. A time-inhomogeneous fuzzy Markov model was developed which estimates the response of a patient to a given treatment plan in terms of quality adjusted life years. These are calculated using the dose-dependent probabilities of tumour control and toxicities as transition probabilities in the model. Dose-volume data representing multiple isotropic patient set-up uncertainties and range uncertainties (for proton therapy) are included to model dose delivery uncertainties. The model was retrospectively applied to an example patient as a demonstration. When uncertainty in the radiobiological model parameter was considered, the model predicted that proton therapy would result in an improved clinical outcome compared with X-ray therapy. However, when dose delivery uncertainty was included, there was no difference between the two treatments. By incorporating uncertainties in the predictive modelling calculations, the fuzzy Markov concept was found to be well suited to providing a more holistic comparison of individualised treatment outcomes for proton and X-ray therapy. This may prove to be useful in model-based patient selection strategies.
Collapse
|
38
|
Intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with hodgkin's lymphoma. Assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15:12. [PMID: 31931861 PMCID: PMC6958567 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-1462-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2019] [Accepted: 01/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background To investigate the role of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for advanced supradiaphragmatic Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) in young female patients by assessing dosimetric features and modelling the risk of treatment related complications and radiation-induced secondary malignancies. Methods A group of 20 cases (planned according to the involved-site approach) were retrospectively investigated in a comparative planning study. Intensity modulated proton plans (IMPT) were compared to VMAT RapidArc plans (RA). Estimates of toxicity were derived from normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) calculations with either the Lyman or the Poisson models for a number of endpoints. Estimates of the risk of secondary cancer induction were determined for lungs, breasts, esophagus and thyroid. A simple model-based selection strategy was considered as a feasibility proof for the individualized selection of patients suitable for proton therapy. Results IMPT and VMAT plans resulted equivalent in terms of target dose distributions, both were capable to ensure high coverage and homogeneity. In terms of conformality, IMPT resulted ~ 10% better than RA plans. Concerning organs at risk, IMPT data presented a systematic improvement (highly significant) over RA for all organs, particularly in the dose range up to 20Gy. This lead to a composite average reduction of NTCP of 2.90 ± 2.24 and a reduction of 0.26 ± 0.22 in the relative risk of cardiac failures. The excess absolute risk per 10,000 patients-years of secondary cancer induction was reduced, with IMPT, of 9.1 ± 3.2, 7.2 ± 3.7 for breast and lung compared to RA. The gain in EAR for thyroid and esophagus was lower than 1. Depending on the arbitrary thresholds applied, the selection rate for proton treatment would have ranged from 5 to 75%. Conclusion In relation to young female patients with advanced supradiaphragmatic HL, IMPT can in general offer improved dose-volume sparing of organs at risk leading to an anticipated lower risk of early or late treatment related toxicities. This would reflect also in significantly lower risk of secondary malignancies induction compared to advanced photon based techniques. Depending on the selection thresholds and with all the limits of a non-validated and very basic model, it can be anticipated that a significant fraction of patients might be suitable for proton treatments if all the risk factors would be accounted for.
Collapse
|
39
|
Cross-modality applicability of rectal normal tissue complication probability models from photon- to proton-based radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2020; 142:253-260. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.09.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2019] [Revised: 09/20/2019] [Accepted: 09/21/2019] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|
40
|
Palma G, Monti S, Conson M, Pacelli R, Cella L. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for modern radiation therapy. Semin Oncol 2019; 46:210-218. [PMID: 31506196 DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2019.07.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2019] [Accepted: 07/31/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Mathematical models of normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) able to robustly predict radiation-induced morbidities (RIM) play an essential role in the identification of a personalized optimal plan, and represent the key to maximizing the benefits of technological advances in radiation therapy (RT). Most modern RT techniques pose, however, new challenges in estimating the risk of RIM. The aim of this report is to schematically review NTCP models in the framework of advanced radiation therapy techniques. Issues relevant to hypofractionated stereotactic body RT and ion beam therapy are critically reviewed. Reirradiation scenarios for new or recurrent malignances and NTCP are also illustrated. A new phenomenological approach to predict RIM is suggested.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giuseppe Palma
- National Research Council, Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging, Napoli, Italy
| | - Serena Monti
- National Research Council, Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging, Napoli, Italy
| | - Manuel Conson
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University School of Medicine, Naples, Italy
| | - Roberto Pacelli
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University School of Medicine, Naples, Italy
| | - Laura Cella
- National Research Council, Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging, Napoli, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Rana S, Greco K, Samuel EJJ, Bennouna J. Radiobiological and dosimetric impact of RayStation pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms on intensity-modulated proton therapy breast cancer plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2019; 20:36-46. [PMID: 31343826 PMCID: PMC6698765 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12676] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2019] [Revised: 05/07/2019] [Accepted: 06/11/2019] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE RayStation treatment planning system employs pencil beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms for proton dose calculations. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the radiobiological and dosimetric impact of RayStation PB and MC algorithms on the intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) breast plans. METHODS The current study included ten breast cancer patients, and each patient was treated with 1-2 proton beams to the whole breast/chestwall (CW) and regional lymph nodes in 28 fractions for a total dose of 50.4 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE). A total clinical target volume (CTV_Total) was generated by combining individual CTVs: AxI, AxII, AxIII, CW, IMN, and SCVN. All beams in the study were treated with a range shifter (7.5 cm water equivalent thickness). For each patient, three sets of plans were generated: (a) PB optimization followed by PB dose calculation (PB-PB), (b) PB optimization followed by MC dose calculation (PB-MC), and (c) MC optimization followed by MC dose calculation (MC-MC). For a given patient, each plan was robustly optimized on the CTVs with same parameters and objectives. Treatment plans were evaluated using dosimetric and radiobiological indices (equivalent uniform dose (EUD), tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP)). RESULTS The results are averaged over ten breast cancer patients. In comparison to PB-PB plans, PB-MC plans showed a reduction in CTV target dose by 5.3% for D99% and 4.1% for D95% , as well as a reduction in TCP by 1.5-2.1%. Similarly, PB overestimated the EUD of target volumes by 1.8─3.2 Gy(RBE). In contrast, MC-MC plans achieved similar dosimetric and radiobiological (EUD and TCP) results as the ones in PB-PB plans. A selection of one dose calculation algorithm over another did not produce any noticeable differences in the NTCP of the heart, lung, and skin. CONCLUSION If MC is more accurate than PB as reported in the literature, dosimetric and radiobiological results from the current study suggest that PB overestimates the target dose, EUD, and TCP for IMPT breast cancer treatment. The overestimation of dosimetric and radiobiological results of the target volume by PB needs to be further interpreted in terms of clinical outcome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suresh Rana
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA.,Department of Physics, School of Advanced Sciences, Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Kevin Greco
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - E James Jebaseelan Samuel
- Department of Physics, School of Advanced Sciences, Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Jaafar Bennouna
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Rwigema JCM, Langendijk JA, Paul van der Laan H, Lukens JN, Swisher-McClure SD, Lin A. A Model-Based Approach to Predict Short-Term Toxicity Benefits With Proton Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 104:553-562. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.12.055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2018] [Revised: 12/11/2018] [Accepted: 12/20/2018] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
43
|
Prayongrat A, Kobashi K, Ito YM, Katoh N, Tamura M, Dekura Y, Toramatsu C, Khorprasert C, Amornwichet N, Alisanant P, Shirato H, Shimizu S. The normal tissue complication probability model-based approach considering uncertainties for the selective use of radiation modality in primary liver cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 2019; 135:100-106. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2018] [Revised: 02/27/2019] [Accepted: 03/04/2019] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
|
44
|
ten Eikelder SCM, den Hertog D, Bortfeld T, Perkó Z. Optimal combined proton–photon therapy schemes based on the standard BED model. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2019; 64:065011. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aafe52] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
|
45
|
Dutz A, Lühr A, Agolli L, Troost EG, Krause M, Baumann M, Vermeren X, Geismar D, Schapira EF, Bussière M, Daly JE, Bussière MR, Timmermann B, Shih HA, Löck S. Development and validation of NTCP models for acute side-effects resulting from proton beam therapy of brain tumours. Radiother Oncol 2019; 130:164-171. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.06.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2018] [Revised: 06/19/2018] [Accepted: 06/22/2018] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
46
|
A Quantitative Clinical Decision-Support Strategy Identifying Which Patients With Oropharyngeal Head and Neck Cancer May Benefit the Most From Proton Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 104:540-552. [PMID: 30496877 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.11.039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2018] [Revised: 11/02/2018] [Accepted: 11/16/2018] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Developing a quantitative decision-support strategy estimating the impact of normal tissue complications from definitive radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC). We developed this strategy to identify patients with oropharyngeal HNC who may benefit most from receiving proton RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS Recent normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for dysphagia, esophagitis, hypothyroidism, xerostomia, and oral mucositis were used to estimate NTCP for 33 patients with oropharyngeal HNC previously treated with photon intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Comparative proton therapy plans were generated using clinical protocols for HNC RT at a collaborating proton center. Organ-at-risk (OAR) doses from photon and proton RT plans were used to calculate NTCPs; Monte Carlo sampling 10,000 times was used for each patient to account for model parameter uncertainty. The latency and duration of each complication were modeled from calculated NTCP, accounting for age-, sex-, smoking- and p16-specific conditional survival probability. Complications were then assigned quality-adjustment factors based on severity to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost from each complication. RESULTS Based on our institutional-delivered photon IMRT doses and the achievable proton therapy doses, the average QALY reduction from all HNC RT complications for photon and proton therapy was 1.52 QALYs versus 1.15 QALYs, with proton therapy sparing 0.37 QALYs on average (composite 95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.53 QALYs). Long-term complications (dysphagia and xerostomia) contributed most to the QALY reduction. The QALYs spared with proton RT varied considerably among patients, ranging from 0.06 to 0.84 QALYs. Younger patients with p16-positive tumors who smoked ≤10 pack-years may benefit most from proton therapy, although this finding should be validated using larger patient series. A sensitivity analysis reducing photon IMRT doses to all OARs by 20% resulted in no overall estimated benefit with proton therapy with -0.02 QALYs spared, although some patients still had an estimated benefit in this scenario, ranging from -0.50 to 0.43 QALYs spared. CONCLUSIONS This quantitative decision-support strategy allowed us to identify patients with oropharyngeal cancer who might benefit the most from proton RT, although the estimated benefit of proton therapy ultimately depends on the OAR doses achievable with modern photon IMRT solutions. These results can help radiation oncologists and proton therapy centers optimize resource allocation and improve quality of life for patients with HNC.
Collapse
|
47
|
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: 83] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.8] [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
|
48
|
Abstract
The favorable beam properties of protons can be translated into clinical benefits by target dose escalation to improve local control without enhancing unacceptable radiation toxicity or to spare normal tissues to prevent radiation-induced side effects without jeopardizing local tumor control. For the clinical validation of the added value of protons to improve local control, randomized controlled trials are required. For the clinical validation of the added value of protons to prevent side effects, both model-based validation or randomized controlled trials can be used. Model-based patient selection for proton therapy is crucial, independent of the validation approach. Combining these approaches in rapid learning health care systems is expected to yield the most efficient and scientifically sound way to continuously improve patient selection and the therapeutic window, eventually leading to more cancer survivors with better quality of life.
Collapse
|
49
|
Safavi-Naeini M, Chacon A, Guatelli S, Franklin DR, Bambery K, Gregoire MC, Rosenfeld A. Opportunistic dose amplification for proton and carbon ion therapy via capture of internally generated thermal neutrons. Sci Rep 2018; 8:16257. [PMID: 30390002 PMCID: PMC6215016 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34643-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2018] [Accepted: 10/22/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
This paper presents Neutron Capture Enhanced Particle Therapy (NCEPT), a method for enhancing the radiation dose delivered to a tumour relative to surrounding healthy tissues during proton and carbon ion therapy by capturing thermal neutrons produced inside the treatment volume during irradiation. NCEPT utilises extant and in-development boron-10 and gadolinium-157-based drugs from the related field of neutron capture therapy. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we demonstrate that a typical proton or carbon ion therapy treatment plan generates an approximately uniform thermal neutron field within the target volume, centred around the beam path. The tissue concentrations of neutron capture agents required to obtain an arbitrary 10% increase in biological effective dose are estimated for realistic treatment plans, and compared to concentrations previously reported in the literature. We conclude that the proposed method is theoretically feasible, and can provide a worthwhile improvement in the dose delivered to the tumour relative to healthy tissue with readily achievable concentrations of neutron capture enhancement drugs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mitra Safavi-Naeini
- Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Sydney, Australia.
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Sydney, Australia.
| | - Andrew Chacon
- Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Sydney, Australia
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Sydney, Australia
| | - Susanna Guatelli
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Sydney, Australia
| | - Daniel R Franklin
- Faculty of Engineering & IT, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Keith Bambery
- Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Sydney, Australia
| | - Marie-Claude Gregoire
- Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Sydney, Australia
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Sydney, Australia
| | - Anatoly Rosenfeld
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
A prospective longitudinal assessment of MRI signal intensity kinetics of non-target muscles in patients with advanced stage oropharyngeal cancer in relationship to radiotherapy dose and post-treatment radiation-associated dysphagia: Preliminary findings from a randomized trial. Radiother Oncol 2018; 130:46-55. [PMID: 30206020 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.08.010] [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: 05/05/2018] [Revised: 08/02/2018] [Accepted: 08/03/2018] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess quantitative signal intensity (SI) kinetics obtained from serial MRI of swallowing muscles as a potential imaging biomarker of radiation-induced dysphagia in oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) patients receiving radiotherapy (RT). METHODS Patients were enrolled under an IRB approved Phase II/III randomized trial. Patients underwent serial MRIs at pre-, mid-, and post-RT. Normalized T1, T1+ contrast (T1 + C), and T2 SI for swallowing muscle volumes-of-interest (VOIs) were collected and delta SI changes (Δ) were calculated. Mid- and post-RT SI relative to baseline were assessed and correlations between radiation dose and percent change in SI were calculated. Independent samples' t-tests were used to compare the percent change of SI between patients divided into two groups based on dysphagia status post-RT. RESULTS Forty-six patients with stage III/IV HPV+ OPC were included in this study. Relative to baseline, mean T2 and T1 + C SIs for middle pharyngeal constrictor were both significantly higher at mid- and post-RT (p < 0.004 for all). Superior pharyngeal constrictor also showed a significant increase in T1 + C SI at mid-RT (p = 0.0004). Additional muscle VOIs showed significant changes post-RT, but not earlier at mid-RT. Both mid- and post-RT doses were significantly correlated with the percent change of normalized T2 and T1 + C SI for examined muscle VOIs (p < 0.002). Mean percent changes of normalized T2 SI at mid-RT relative to baseline for all muscle VOIs were significantly higher in patients who developed grade ≥2 dysphagia relative to patients with no/mild dysphasia (mean Δ%: 8.2% vs 1.9%; respectively, p = 0.002). However, at post-RT, these changes were only significant in T1 SI (11.2% vs -1.3%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION Signal intensity kinetics of radiation injury can be broadly correlated with the functional muscular defect. Serial MRI during the course of RT may provide an opportunity to quantitatively track muscular pathology for subclinical detection of patients at high risk to develop dysphagia.
Collapse
|