1
|
Oonsiri S, Kitpanit S, Kannarunimit D, Chakkabat C, Lertbutsayanukul C, Prayongrat A. Comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy beam configurations for treating thoracic esophageal cancer. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2022; 22:51-56. [PMID: 35514527 PMCID: PMC9065423 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.04.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2021] [Revised: 04/10/2022] [Accepted: 04/20/2022] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Dosimetric benefit of proton over x-ray treatment for thoracic esophageal cancer. Reduction of pulmonary and cardiac toxicity by proton therapy. Intensity modulated proton therapy beam configurations designed by tumor location.
Background and purpose Specific proton-beam configurations are needed to spare organs at risk (OARs), including lungs, heart, and spinal cord, when treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the thoracic region. This study aimed to propose new intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) beam configurations and to demonstrate the benefit of IMPT compared with intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMXT) for treating ESCC. Material and methods IMPT plans with three different beam angle configurations were generated on CT datasets of 25 ESCC patients that were treated with IMXT. The IMPT beam designs were two commonly-used beam configurations (anteroposterior and posterior oblique) and a recently proposed beam configuration (anterosuperior with posteroinferior). The target doses were 50–54 Gy(RBE) and 60–64 Gy(RBE) to the low-risk and high-risk target volumes, respectively. Robust optimization was applied for the IMPT plans. The differences in the dose-volume parameters between the IMXT and IMPT plans were compared. Results With target coverage comparable to standard IMXT, IMPT had significantly lower mean doses to the OARs. IMPT with an anteroposterior opposing beam generated the lowest lung dose (mean = 7.1 Gy(RBE), V20 = 14.1%) and the anterosuperior with posteroinferior beam resulted in the lowest heart dose (mean = 12.8 Gy(RBE), V30 = 15.7%) and liver dose (mean = 3.9 Gy(RBE), V30 = 5.9%). For the subgroup of patients with an inferior tumor location (PTVs overlapping a part of the contoured heart), the novel beam demonstrated the optimal OARs sparing. Conclusion Compared with IMXT, the IMPT plans significantly reduced the radiation dose to the surrounding organs when treating ESCC. IMPT beam configuration selection depends on the tumor location relative to the heart.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Anussara Prayongrat
- Corresponding author at: 1873 Rama IV Road, Pathumwan District, Bangkok 10300, Thailand.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
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]
|
3
|
Tambas M, van der Laan HP, Steenbakkers RJHM, Doyen J, Timmermann B, Orlandi E, Hoyer M, Haustermans K, Georg P, Burnet NG, Gregoire V, Calugaru V, Troost EGC, Hoebers F, Calvo FA, Widder J, Eberle F, van Vulpen M, Maingon P, Skóra T, Weber DC, Bergfeldt K, Kubes J, Langendijk JA. Current practice in proton therapy delivery in adult cancer patients across Europe. Radiother Oncol 2021; 167:7-13. [PMID: 34902370 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2021] [Revised: 11/18/2021] [Accepted: 12/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Major differences exist among proton therapy (PT) centres regarding PT delivery in adult cancer patient. To obtain insight into current practice in Europe, we performed a survey among European PT centres. MATERIALS AND METHODS We designed electronic questionnaires for eight tumour sites, focusing on four main topics: 1) indications and patient selection methods; 2) reimbursement; 3) on-going or planned studies, 4) annual number of patients treated with PT. RESULTS Of 22 centres, 19 (86%) responded. In total, 4233 adult patients are currently treated across Europe annually, of which 46% consists of patients with central nervous system tumours (CNS), 15% head and neck cancer (HNC), 15% prostate, 9% breast, 5% lung, 5% gastrointestinal, 4% lymphoma, 0.3% gynaecological cancers. CNS are treated in all participating centres (n = 19) using PT, HNC in 16 centres, lymphoma in 10 centres, gastrointestinal in 10 centres, breast in 7 centres, prostate in 6 centres, lung in 6 centres, and gynaecological cancers in 3 centres. Reimbursement is provided by national health care systems for the majority of commonly treated tumour sites. Approximately 74% of centres enrol patients for prospective data registration programs. Phase II-III trials are less frequent, due to reimbursement and funding problems. Reasons for not treating certain tumour types with PT are lack of evidence (30%), reimbursement issues (29%) and/or technical limitations (20%). CONCLUSION Across European PT centres, CNS tumours and HNC are the most frequently treated tumour types. Most centres use indication protocols. Lack of evidence for PT and reimbursement issues are the most reported reasons for not treating specific tumour types with PT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Makbule Tambas
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands.
| | - Hans Paul van der Laan
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands
| | - Roel J H M Steenbakkers
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands
| | - Jerome Doyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, University of Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
| | - Beate Timmermann
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Germany
| | - Ester Orlandi
- Radiation Oncology Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Pavia, Italy
| | - Morten Hoyer
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | | | - Neil G Burnet
- Proton Beam Therapy Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Valentin Calugaru
- Institut Curie, Radiation Oncology Department, Paris & Proton Center, Orsay, France
| | - Esther G C Troost
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität 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, Germany; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Frank Hoebers
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, The Netherlands
| | - Felipe A Calvo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Joachim Widder
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
| | - Fabian Eberle
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (MIT), University Center for Tumor Diseases Frankfurt and Marburg (UCT), Germany
| | | | - Philippe Maingon
- Sorbonne University, AP-HP. Sorbonne University, Hôpitaux Universitaires La Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, France
| | - Tomasz Skóra
- Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Department of Radiotherapy, Kraków, Poland
| | - Damien C Weber
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, ETH Domain, Switzerland
| | | | - Jiri Kubes
- Depatment of Oncology, Motol University Hospital and Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Jampa-Ngern S, Kobashi K, Shimizu S, Takao S, Nakazato K, Shirato H. Prediction of liver Dmean for proton beam therapy using deep learning and contour-based data augmentation. JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH 2021:rrab095. [PMID: 34617104 DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrab095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2021] [Revised: 08/13/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
The prediction of liver Dmean with 3-dimensional radiation treatment planning (3DRTP) is time consuming in the selection of proton beam therapy (PBT), and deep learning prediction generally requires large and tumor-specific databases. We developed a simple dose prediction tool (SDP) using deep learning and a novel contour-based data augmentation (CDA) approach and assessed its usability. We trained the SDP to predict the liver Dmean immediately. Five and two computed tomography (CT) data sets of actual patients with liver cancer were used for the training and validation. Data augmentation was performed by artificially embedding 199 contours of virtual clinical target volume (CTV) into CT images for each patient. The data sets of the CTVs and OARs are labeled with liver Dmean for six different treatment plans using two-dimensional calculations assuming all tissue densities as 1.0. The test of the validated model was performed using 10 unlabeled CT data sets of actual patients. Contouring only of the liver and CTV was required as input. The mean relative error (MRE), the mean percentage error (MPE) and regression coefficient between the planned and predicted Dmean was 0.1637, 6.6%, and 0.9455, respectively. The mean time required for the inference of liver Dmean of the six different treatment plans for a patient was 4.47±0.13 seconds. We conclude that the SDP is cost-effective and usable for gross estimation of liver Dmean in the clinic although the accuracy should be improved further if we need the accuracy of liver Dmean to be compatible with 3DRTP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sira Jampa-Ngern
- Graduate School of Biomedical Science and Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 0608638, Japan
| | - Keiji Kobashi
- Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, 0608638, Japan
- Department of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 0608638, Japan
| | - Shinichi Shimizu
- Graduate School of Biomedical Science and Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 0608638, Japan
- Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, 0608638, Japan
- Department of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 0608638, Japan
| | - Seishin Takao
- Global Center for Biomedical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 0608638, Japan
- Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 0608628, Japan
| | - Keiji Nakazato
- Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, 0608638, Japan
- Department of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 0608638, Japan
| | - Hiroki Shirato
- Graduate School of Biomedical Science and Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 0608638, Japan
- Department of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 0608638, Japan
- Global Center for Biomedical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 0608638, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
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
|
6
|
Palma G, Monti S, Conson M, Pacelli R, Cella L. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for modern radiation therapy. Semin Oncol 2019; 46:210-218. [PMID: 31506196 DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2019.07.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2019] [Accepted: 07/31/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Mathematical models of normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) able to robustly predict radiation-induced morbidities (RIM) play an essential role in the identification of a personalized optimal plan, and represent the key to maximizing the benefits of technological advances in radiation therapy (RT). Most modern RT techniques pose, however, new challenges in estimating the risk of RIM. The aim of this report is to schematically review NTCP models in the framework of advanced radiation therapy techniques. Issues relevant to hypofractionated stereotactic body RT and ion beam therapy are critically reviewed. Reirradiation scenarios for new or recurrent malignances and NTCP are also illustrated. A new phenomenological approach to predict RIM is suggested.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giuseppe Palma
- National Research Council, Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging, Napoli, Italy
| | - Serena Monti
- National Research Council, Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging, Napoli, Italy
| | - Manuel Conson
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University School of Medicine, Naples, Italy
| | - Roberto Pacelli
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University School of Medicine, Naples, Italy
| | - Laura Cella
- National Research Council, Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging, Napoli, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Nystrom H, Jensen MF, Nystrom PW. Treatment planning for proton therapy: what is needed in the next 10 years? Br J Radiol 2019; 93:20190304. [PMID: 31356107 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190304] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Treatment planning is the process where the prescription of the radiation oncologist is translated into a deliverable treatment. With the complexity of contemporary radiotherapy, treatment planning cannot be performed without a computerized treatment planning system. Proton therapy (PT) enables highly conformal treatment plans with a minimum of dose to tissues outside the target volume, but to obtain the most optimal plan for the treatment, there are a multitude of parameters that need to be addressed. In this review areas of ongoing improvements and research in the field of PT treatment planning are identified and discussed. The main focus is on issues of immediate clinical and practical relevance to the PT community highlighting the needs for the near future but also in a longer perspective. We anticipate that the manual tasks performed by treatment planners in the future will involve a high degree of computational thinking, as many issues can be solved much better by e.g. scripting. More accurate and faster dose calculation algorithms are needed, automation for contouring and planning is required and practical tools to handle the variable biological efficiency in PT is urgently demanded just to mention a few of the expected improvements over the coming 10 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hakan Nystrom
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.,Skandionkliniken, Uppsala, Sweden
| | | | - Petra Witt Nystrom
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.,Skandionkliniken, Uppsala, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Lazar AA, Schulte R, Faddegon B, Blakely EA, Roach M. Clinical trials involving carbon-ion radiation therapy and the path forward. Cancer 2018; 124:4467-4476. [PMID: 30307603 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31662] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2018] [Revised: 06/22/2018] [Accepted: 06/29/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
To describe the international landscape of clinical trials in carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT), the authors reviewed the current status of 63 ongoing clinical trials (median, 47 participants) involving CIRT identified from the US clinicaltrials.gov trial registry and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Registry. The objectives were to evaluate the potential for these trials to define the role of this modality in the treatment of specific cancer types and identify the major challenges and opportunities to advance this technology. A significant body of literature suggested the potential for advantageous dose distributions and, in preclinical biologic studies, the enhanced effectiveness for CIRT compared with photons and protons. In addition, clinical evidence from phase I/II trials, although limited, indicated the potential for CIRT to improve cancer outcomes. However, current high-level phase III randomized clinical trial evidence does not exist. Although there has been an increase in the number of trials investigating CIRT since 2010, and the number of countries and sites offering CIRT is slowly growing, this progress has excluded other countries. Several recommendations are proposed to study this modality to accelerate progress in the field, including: 1) increasing the number of multinational randomized clinical trials, 2) leveraging the existing CIRT facilities to launch larger multinational trials directed at common cancers combined with high-level quality assurance; and 3) developing more compact and less expensive next-generation treatment systems integrated with radiobiologic research and preclinical testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ann A Lazar
- Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California.,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCSF, San Francisco, California
| | - Reinhard Schulte
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California.,Department of Basic Sciences, Division of Biomedical Engineering Sciences, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California
| | - Bruce Faddegon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California
| | - Eleanor A Blakely
- Division of Biological Systems and Engineering, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California
| | - Mack Roach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California
| |
Collapse
|