PURPOSE: To perform a dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT), and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) to the para-aortic (PA) nodal region in women with locally advanced gynecologic malignancies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The CT treatment planning scans of 10 consecutive patients treated with IMRT to the pelvis and PA nodes were identified. The clinical target volume was defined by the primary tumor for patients with cervical cancer and by the vagina and paravaginal tissues for patients with endometrial cancer, in addition to the regional lymph nodes. The IMRT, PSPT, and IMPT plans were generated using the Eclipse Treatment Planning System and were analyzed for various dosimetric endpoints. Two groups of treatment plans including proton radiotherapy were created: IMRT to pelvic nodes with PSPT to PA nodes (PSPT/IMRT), and IMRT to pelvic nodes with IMPT to PA nodes (IMPT/IMRT). The IMRT and proton RT plans were optimized to deliver 50.4 Gy or Gy (relative biologic effectiveness [RBE)), respectively. Dose-volume histograms were analyzed for all of the organs at risk. The paired t test was used for all statistical comparison. RESULTS: The small-bowel V(20), V(30), V(35), andV(40) were reduced in PSPT/IMRT by 11%, 18%, 27%, and 43%, respectively (p < 0.01). Treatment with IMPT/IMRT demonstrated a 32% decrease in the small-bowel V(20). Treatment with PSPT/IMRT showed statistically significant reductions in the body V(5-20); IMPT/IMRT showed reductions in the body V(5-15). The dose received by half of both kidneys was reduced by PSPT/IMRT and by IMPT/IMRT. All plans maintained excellent coverage of the planning target volume. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with IMRT alone, PSPT/IMRT and IMPT/IMRT had a statistically significant decrease in dose to the small and large bowel and kidneys, while maintaining excellent planning target volume coverage. Further studies should be done to correlate the clinical significance of these findings.
PURPOSE: To perform a dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT), and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) to the para-aortic (PA) nodal region in women with locally advanced gynecologic malignancies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The CT treatment planning scans of 10 consecutive patients treated with IMRT to the pelvis and PA nodes were identified. The clinical target volume was defined by the primary tumor for patients with cervical cancer and by the vagina and paravaginal tissues for patients with endometrial cancer, in addition to the regional lymph nodes. The IMRT, PSPT, and IMPT plans were generated using the Eclipse Treatment Planning System and were analyzed for various dosimetric endpoints. Two groups of treatment plans including proton radiotherapy were created: IMRT to pelvic nodes with PSPT to PA nodes (PSPT/IMRT), and IMRT to pelvic nodes with IMPT to PA nodes (IMPT/IMRT). The IMRT and proton RT plans were optimized to deliver 50.4 Gy or Gy (relative biologic effectiveness [RBE)), respectively. Dose-volume histograms were analyzed for all of the organs at risk. The paired t test was used for all statistical comparison. RESULTS: The small-bowel V(20), V(30), V(35), andV(40) were reduced in PSPT/IMRT by 11%, 18%, 27%, and 43%, respectively (p < 0.01). Treatment with IMPT/IMRT demonstrated a 32% decrease in the small-bowel V(20). Treatment with PSPT/IMRT showed statistically significant reductions in the body V(5-20); IMPT/IMRT showed reductions in the body V(5-15). The dose received by half of both kidneys was reduced by PSPT/IMRT and by IMPT/IMRT. All plans maintained excellent coverage of the planning target volume. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with IMRT alone, PSPT/IMRT and IMPT/IMRT had a statistically significant decrease in dose to the small and large bowel and kidneys, while maintaining excellent planning target volume coverage. Further studies should be done to correlate the clinical significance of these findings.
Authors: Anna Lee; Jung J Kang; Havah Bernstein; Kathryn E Marqueen; Brian Neal; Ciara M Kelly; Mark A Dickson; Chiaojung Jillian Tsai; William Tap; Samuel Singer; Kaled Alektiar; Nancy Y Lee Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 4.711
Authors: N Arians; K Lindel; J Krisam; K Herfarth; D Krug; S Akbaba; J Oelmann-Avendano; J Debus Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Whoon Jong Kil; R Charles Nichols; John W Kilkenny; Soon Y Huh; Meng Wei Ho; Pratibha Gupta; Robert B Marcus; Daniel J Indelicato Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Jelena Lukovic; Nikhilesh Patil; David D'souza; Barbara Millman; Brian P Yaremko; Eric Leung; Frances Whiston; George Hajdok; Eugene Wong Journal: Cureus Date: 2016-01-25