BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is a highly aggressive malignancy. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is utilized in many cases to improve locoregional control; however, toxicities associated with radiation can be significant given the location of the pancreas. RTOG 0848 seeks to evaluate chemoradiation using either intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or 3D conformal photon radiotherapy (3DCRT) modalities as an adjuvant treatment. The purpose of this study is to quantify the dosimetric changes seen when using IMRT or 3D CRT photon modalities, as well as proton radiotherapy, in patients receiving CRT for cancer of the pancreas treated per RTOG 0848 guidelines. MATERIALS: Ten patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma treated between 2010 and 2013 were evaluated in this study. All patients were simulated with contrast-enhanced CT imaging. Separate treatment plans using IMRT and 3DCRT as well as proton radiotherapy were created for each patient. All planning volumes were created per RTOG 0848 protocol. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were calculated and analyzed in order to compare plans between the three modalities. The organs at risk (OAR) evaluated in this study are the kidneys, liver, small bowel, and spinal cord. RESULTS: There was no difference between the IMRT and 3DCRT plans in dose delivered to the kidneys, liver, or bowel. The proton radiotherapy plans were found to deliver lower mean total kidney doses, mean liver doses, and liver D1/3 compared to the IMRT plans. The proton plans also gave less mean liver dose, liver D1/3, bowel V15, and bowel V50 in comparison to the 3DCRT. CONCLUSIONS: For patients receiving radiotherapy per ongoing RTOG 0848 for pancreatic cancer, there was no significant difference in normal tissue sparing between IMRT and 3DCRT treatment planning. Therefore, the choice between the two modalities should not be a confounding factor in this study. The proton plans also demonstrated improved OAR sparing compared to both IMRT and 3DCRT treatment plans.
BACKGROUND:Pancreatic cancer is a highly aggressive malignancy. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is utilized in many cases to improve locoregional control; however, toxicities associated with radiation can be significant given the location of the pancreas. RTOG 0848 seeks to evaluate chemoradiation using either intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or 3D conformal photon radiotherapy (3DCRT) modalities as an adjuvant treatment. The purpose of this study is to quantify the dosimetric changes seen when using IMRT or 3D CRT photon modalities, as well as proton radiotherapy, in patients receiving CRT for cancer of the pancreas treated per RTOG 0848 guidelines. MATERIALS: Ten patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma treated between 2010 and 2013 were evaluated in this study. All patients were simulated with contrast-enhanced CT imaging. Separate treatment plans using IMRT and 3DCRT as well as proton radiotherapy were created for each patient. All planning volumes were created per RTOG 0848 protocol. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were calculated and analyzed in order to compare plans between the three modalities. The organs at risk (OAR) evaluated in this study are the kidneys, liver, small bowel, and spinal cord. RESULTS: There was no difference between the IMRT and 3DCRT plans in dose delivered to the kidneys, liver, or bowel. The proton radiotherapy plans were found to deliver lower mean total kidney doses, mean liver doses, and liver D1/3 compared to the IMRT plans. The proton plans also gave less mean liver dose, liver D1/3, bowel V15, and bowel V50 in comparison to the 3DCRT. CONCLUSIONS: For patients receiving radiotherapy per ongoing RTOG 0848 for pancreatic cancer, there was no significant difference in normal tissue sparing between IMRT and 3DCRT treatment planning. Therefore, the choice between the two modalities should not be a confounding factor in this study. The proton plans also demonstrated improved OAR sparing compared to both IMRT and 3DCRT treatment plans.
Authors: B Emami; J Lyman; A Brown; L Coia; M Goitein; J E Munzenrider; B Shank; L J Solin; M Wesson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1991-05-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alyson McIntosh; Paul W Read; Shiv R Khandelwal; Douglas W Arthur; A Benton Turner; Kenneth J Ruchala; Gustavo H Olivera; Sam Jeswani; Ke Sheng Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lye Mun Tho; Martin Glegg; Jennifer Paterson; Christina Yap; Alice MacLeod; Marie McCabe; Alexander C McDonald Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-07-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Romaine C Nichols; Soon N Huh; Karl L Prado; Byong Y Yi; Navesh K Sharma; Meng W Ho; Bradford S Hoppe; Nancy P Mendenhall; Zuofeng Li; William F Regine Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kathy L Baglan; Robert C Frazier; Di Yan; Raywin R Huang; Alvaro A Martinez; John M Robertson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Taylor Murray; Jiaquan Xu; Carol Smigal; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Kevin R Kozak; Lisa A Kachnic; Judith Adams; Elizabeth M Crowley; Brian M Alexander; Harvey J Mamon; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; David P Ryan; Thomas F DeLaney; Theodore S Hong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kathryn J Schunke; Lauren M Rosati; Marianna Zahurak; Joseph M Herman; Amol K Narang; Irina Usach; Alison P Klein; Charles J Yeo; Larry T Korman; Ralph H Hruban; John L Cameron; Daniel A Laheru; Ross A Abrams Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-08-03