Literature DB >> 23916884

Spot-scanning beam proton therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy for ipsilateral head and neck malignancies: a treatment planning comparison.

Shravan Kandula1, Xiaorong Zhu, Adam S Garden, Michael Gillin, David I Rosenthal, Kie-Kian Ang, Radhe Mohan, Mayankkumar V Amin, John A Garcia, Richard Wu, Narayan Sahoo, Steven J Frank.   

Abstract

Radiation therapy for head and neck malignancies can have side effects that impede quality of life. Theoretically, proton therapy can reduce treatment-related morbidity by minimizing the dose to critical normal tissues. We evaluated the feasibility of spot-scanning proton therapy for head and neck malignancies and compared dosimetry between those plans and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans. Plans from 5 patients who had undergone IMRT for primary tumors of the head and neck were used for planning proton therapy. Both sets of plans were prepared using computed tomography (CT) scans with the goals of achieving 100% of the prescribed dose to the clinical target volume (CTV) and 95% to the planning TV (PTV) while maximizing conformity to the PTV. Dose-volume histograms were generated and compared, as were conformity indexes (CIs) to the PTVs and mean doses to the organs at risk (OARs). Both modalities in all cases achieved 100% of the dose to the CTV and 95% to the PTV. Mean PTV CIs were comparable (0.371 IMRT, 0.374 protons, p = 0.953). Mean doses were significantly lower in the proton plans to the contralateral submandibular (638.7 cGy IMRT, 4.3 cGy protons, p = 0.002) and parotid (533.3 cGy IMRT, 48.5 cGy protons, p = 0.003) glands; oral cavity (1760.4 cGy IMRT, 458.9 cGy protons, p = 0.003); spinal cord (2112.4 cGy IMRT, 249.2 cGy protons, p = 0.002); and brainstem (1553.52 cGy IMRT, 166.2 cGy protons, p = 0.005). Proton plans also produced lower maximum doses to the spinal cord (3692.1 cGy IMRT, 2014.8 cGy protons, p = 0.034) and brainstem (3412.1 cGy IMRT, 1387.6 cGy protons, p = 0.005). Normal tissue V10, V30, and V50 values were also significantly lower in the proton plans. We conclude that spot-scanning proton therapy can significantly reduce the integral dose to head and neck critical structures. Prospective studies are underway to determine if this reduced dose translates to improved quality of life.
© 2013 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Head and neck malignancies; Proton therapy; Radiation therapy; Single field uniform dose optimization; Spot scanning

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23916884     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2013.05.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  38 in total

1.  Comparing Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy With Intensity-Modulated Photon Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer: The Journey From Clinical Trial Concept to Activation.

Authors:  Steven J Frank; Pierre Blanchard; J Jack Lee; Erich M Sturgis; Merrill S Kies; Mitchell Machtay; Bhadrasain Vikram; Adam S Garden; David I Rosenthal; G Brandon Gunn; C David Fuller; Katherine Hutcheson; Stephen Lai; Paul M Busse; Nancy Y Lee; Alexander Lin; Robert L Foote
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 5.934

2.  Proton beam therapy for locally advanced and unresectable (T4bN0M0) squamous cell carcinoma of the ethmoid sinus: A report of seven cases and a literature review.

Authors:  Takashi Saito; Hitoshi Ishikawa; Kayoko Ohnishi; Teruhito Aihara; Masashi Mizumoto; Nobuyoshi Fukumitsu; Kaori Sugawara; Toshiyuki Okumura; Hideyuki Sakurai
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2015-05-15       Impact factor: 2.967

3.  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

4.  Multifield optimization intensity modulated proton therapy for head and neck tumors: a translation to practice.

Authors:  Steven J Frank; James D Cox; Michael Gillin; Radhe Mohan; Adam S Garden; David I Rosenthal; G Brandon Gunn; Randal S Weber; Merrill S Kies; Jan S Lewin; Mark F Munsell; Matthew B Palmer; Narayan Sahoo; Xiaodong Zhang; Wei Liu; X Ronald Zhu
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2014-05-24       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  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

6.  Impact of Spot Size and Beam-Shaping Devices on the Treatment Plan Quality for Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Maryam Moteabbed; Torunn I Yock; Nicolas Depauw; Thomas M Madden; Hanne M Kooy; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Clinical Outcomes and Patterns of Disease Recurrence After Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Oropharyngeal Squamous Carcinoma.

Authors:  G Brandon Gunn; Pierre Blanchard; Adam S Garden; X Ronald Zhu; C David Fuller; Abdallah S Mohamed; William H Morrison; Jack Phan; Beth M Beadle; Heath D Skinner; Erich M Sturgis; Merrill S Kies; Kate A Hutcheson; David I Rosenthal; Radhe Mohan; Michael T Gillin; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharynx cancer - A case matched analysis.

Authors:  Pierre Blanchard; Adam S Garden; G Brandon Gunn; David I Rosenthal; William H Morrison; Mike Hernandez; Joseph Crutison; Jack J Lee; Rong Ye; C David Fuller; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Kate A Hutcheson; Emma B Holliday; Nikhil G Thaker; Erich M Sturgis; Merrill S Kies; X Ronald Zhu; Radhe Mohan; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 6.280

9.  Beam path toxicity in candidate organs-at-risk: assessment of radiation emetogenesis for patients receiving head and neck intensity modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  Esengul Kocak-Uzel; G Brandon Gunn; Rivka R Colen; Micheal E Kantor; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Sara Schoultz-Henley; Paniyotis Mavroidis; Steven J Frank; Adam S Garden; Beth M Beadle; William H Morrison; Jack Phan; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2014-04-17       Impact factor: 6.280

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.