Literature DB >> 20732761

Potential benefits of scanned intensity-modulated proton therapy versus advanced photon therapy with regard to sparing of the salivary glands in oropharyngeal cancer.

Tara A van de Water1, Antony J Lomax, Hendrik P Bijl, Marije E de Jong, Cornelis Schilstra, Eugen B Hug, Johannes A Langendijk.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that scanned intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) results in a significant dose reduction to the parotid and submandibular glands as compared with intensity-modulated radiotherapy with photons (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for oropharyngeal cancer. In addition, we investigated whether the achieved dose reductions would theoretically translate into a reduction of salivary dysfunction and xerostomia. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients with N0 oropharyngeal carcinoma were used. The intensity-modulated plans delivered simultaneously 70 Gy to the boost planning target volume (PTV2) and 54 Gy to the elective nodal areas (PTV1). The 3D-CRT technique delivered sequentially 70 Gy and 46 Gy to PTV2 and PTV1, respectively. Normal tissue complication probabilities were calculated for salivary dysfunction and xerostomia.
RESULTS: Planning target volume coverage results were similar for IMPT and IMRT. Intensity-modulated proton therapy clearly improved the conformity. The 3D-CRT results were inferior to these results. The mean dose to the parotid glands by 3D-CRT (50.8 Gy), IMRT (25.5 Gy), and IMPT (16.8 Gy) differed significantly. For the submandibular glands no significant differences between IMRT and IMPT were found. The dose reductions obtained with IMPT theoretically translated into a significant reduction in normal tissue complication probability.
CONCLUSION: Compared with IMRT and 3D-CRT, IMPT improved sparing of the organs at risk, while keeping similar target coverage results. The dose reductions obtained with IMPT vs. IMRT and 3D-CRT varied widely per individual patient. Intensity-modulated proton therapy theoretically translated into a clinical benefit for most cases, but this requires clinical validation.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20732761     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.05.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  34 in total

1.  Water equivalent path length calculations using scatter-corrected head and neck CBCT images to evaluate patients for adaptive proton therapy.

Authors:  Jihun Kim; Yang-Kyun Park; Gregory Sharp; Paul Busse; Brian Winey
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Beam angle optimization using angular dependency of range variation assessed via water equivalent path length (WEPL) calculation for head and neck proton therapy.

Authors:  Jihun Kim; Yang-Kyun Park; Gregory Sharp; Paul Busse; Brian Winey
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 2.685

3.  Proton beam radiation therapy results in significantly reduced toxicity compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck tumors that require ipsilateral radiation.

Authors:  Paul B Romesser; Oren Cahlon; Eli Scher; Ying Zhou; Sean L Berry; Alisa Rybkin; Kevin M Sine; Shikui Tang; Eric J Sherman; Richard Wong; Nancy Y Lee
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 6.280

4.  Unilateral and bilateral neck SIB for head and neck cancer patients : Intensity-modulated proton therapy, tomotherapy, and RapidArc.

Authors:  Carmen Stromberger; Luca Cozzi; Volker Budach; Antonella Fogliata; Pirus Ghadjar; Waldemar Wlodarczyk; Basil Jamil; Jan D Raguse; Arne Böttcher; Simone Marnitz
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2016-02-06       Impact factor: 3.621

5.  The evolution of proton beam therapy: Current and future status.

Authors:  Xiufang Tian; Kun Liu; Yong Hou; Jian Cheng; Jiandong Zhang
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-11-14

Review 6.  Corticosteroid therapy for hearing and balance disorders.

Authors:  Dennis R Trune; Barbara Canlon
Journal:  Anat Rec (Hoboken)       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 2.064

Review 7.  Reduced radiation-induced toxicity by using proton therapy for the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer.

Authors:  Tineke W H Meijer; Dan Scandurra; Johannes A Langendijk
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Dosimetric Comparison of Pencil-Beam Scanning and Photon-Based Radiation Therapy as a Boost in Carcinoma of Cervix.

Authors:  Manoj K Sharma; Eugen B Hug; Manindra Bhushan; Dennis Mah; Dominic Maes; Munish Gairola; Surender K Sharma; Girigesh Yadav; Manoj Pal; Deepika Chauhan; Abhinav Dewan; Inderjit Kaur; Sarthak Tandon; Swarupa Mitra
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2017-12-28

9.  Quantification of plan robustness against different uncertainty sources for classical and anatomical robust optimized treatment plans in head and neck cancer proton therapy.

Authors:  Macarena Cubillos-Mesías; Esther G C Troost; Fabian Lohaus; Linda Agolli; Maximilian Rehm; Christian Richter; Kristin Stützer
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Comparison of Pencil Beam Scanning Proton- and Photon-Based Techniques for Carcinoma of the Parotid.

Authors:  Samuel Swisher-McClure; Boon-Keng Kevin Teo; Maura Kirk; Chang Chang; Alexander Lin
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2016-03-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.