PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is the state-of-the-art treatment for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). The goal of this work was to assess whether intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) could further improve the dosimetric results allowed by IMRT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We re-planned 7 MPM cases using both photons and protons, by carrying out IMRT and IMPT plans. For both techniques, conventional dose comparisons and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) analysis were performed. In 3 cases, additional IMPT plans were generated with different beam dimensions. RESULTS: IMPT allowed a slight improvement in target coverage and clear advantages in dose conformity (p < 0.001) and dose homogeneity (p = 0.01). Better organ at risk (OAR) sparing was obtained with IMPT, in particular for the liver (D(mean) reduction of 9.5 Gy, p = 0.001) and ipsilateral kidney (V(20) reduction of 58%, p = 0.001), together with a very large reduction of mean dose for the contralateral lung (0.2 Gy vs 6.1 Gy, p = 0.0001). NTCP values for the liver showed a systematic superiority of IMPT with respect to IMRT for both the esophagus (average NTCP 14% vs. 30.5%) and the ipsilateral kidney (p = 0.001). Concerning plans obtained with different spot dimensions, a slight loss of target coverage was observed along with sigma increase, while maintaining OAR irradiation always under planning constraints. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that IMPT allows better OAR sparing with respect to IMRT, mainly for the liver, ipsilateral kidney, and contralateral lung. The use of a spot dimension larger than 3 × 3 mm (up to 9 × 9 mm) does not compromise dosimetric results and allows a shorter delivery time.
PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is the state-of-the-art treatment for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). The goal of this work was to assess whether intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) could further improve the dosimetric results allowed by IMRT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We re-planned 7 MPM cases using both photons and protons, by carrying out IMRT and IMPT plans. For both techniques, conventional dose comparisons and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) analysis were performed. In 3 cases, additional IMPT plans were generated with different beam dimensions. RESULTS: IMPT allowed a slight improvement in target coverage and clear advantages in dose conformity (p < 0.001) and dose homogeneity (p = 0.01). Better organ at risk (OAR) sparing was obtained with IMPT, in particular for the liver (D(mean) reduction of 9.5 Gy, p = 0.001) and ipsilateral kidney (V(20) reduction of 58%, p = 0.001), together with a very large reduction of mean dose for the contralateral lung (0.2 Gy vs 6.1 Gy, p = 0.0001). NTCP values for the liver showed a systematic superiority of IMPT with respect to IMRT for both the esophagus (average NTCP 14% vs. 30.5%) and the ipsilateral kidney (p = 0.001). Concerning plans obtained with different spot dimensions, a slight loss of target coverage was observed along with sigma increase, while maintaining OAR irradiation always under planning constraints. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that IMPT allows better OAR sparing with respect to IMRT, mainly for the liver, ipsilateral kidney, and contralateral lung. The use of a spot dimension larger than 3 × 3 mm (up to 9 × 9 mm) does not compromise dosimetric results and allows a shorter delivery time.
Authors: V W Rusch; K Rosenzweig; E Venkatraman; L Leon; A Raben; L Harrison; M S Bains; R J Downey; R J Ginsberg Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Gordon Buduhan; Shekhar Menon; Ralph Aye; Brian Louie; Vivek Mehta; Eric Vallières Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Edward F Miles; Nicole A Larrier; Christopher R Kelsey; Jessica L Hubbs; Jinli Ma; Sua Yoo; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-02-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: B Knäusl; C Lütgendorf-Caucig; J Hopfgartner; K Dieckmann; L Kurch; T Pelz; R Pötter; D Georg Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-11-18 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: M Mizumoto; T Okumura; E Ishikawa; T Yamamoto; S Takano; A Matsumura; Y Oshiro; H Ishikawa; H Sakurai; K Tsuboi Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Stephanie R Rice; Yun R Li; Theresa M Busch; Michele M Kim; Sally McNulty; Andrea Dimofte; Timothy C Zhu; Keith A Cengel; Charles B Simone Journal: Photochem Photobiol Date: 2018-12-28 Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: M Mizumoto; H Hashii; M Senarita; S Sakai; T Wada; T Okumura; K Tsuboi; H Sakurai Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 3.621