BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) has the potential to spare dose to organs at risk (OAR) when compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) while maintaining excellent clinical outcomes. METHODS: Ten patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) were identified for whom IMPT was planned; 9 patients also had a comparison photon-based IMRT plan generated. Dosimetric comparison of mean radiation dose to 29 adjacent OAR was performed. Disease control, survival, and toxicity outcomes were collected from the medical records. RESULTS: There were significant differences in mean doses in 15 of the 29 OAR; 13 OAR received lower mean dose with proton-based plans. Median follow-up was 24.5 months (range, 19-32 months). Two-year locoregional control was 100% and the 2-year overall survival was 88.9%. CONCLUSION: We observed dosimetric advantages conferred by IMPT compared to IMRT. Further study is needed to determine if these translate into reduced toxicity and/or improved disease control.
BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) has the potential to spare dose to organs at risk (OAR) when compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) while maintaining excellent clinical outcomes. METHODS: Ten patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) were identified for whom IMPT was planned; 9 patients also had a comparison photon-based IMRT plan generated. Dosimetric comparison of mean radiation dose to 29 adjacent OAR was performed. Disease control, survival, and toxicity outcomes were collected from the medical records. RESULTS: There were significant differences in mean doses in 15 of the 29 OAR; 13 OAR received lower mean dose with proton-based plans. Median follow-up was 24.5 months (range, 19-32 months). Two-year locoregional control was 100% and the 2-year overall survival was 88.9%. CONCLUSION: We observed dosimetric advantages conferred by IMPT compared to IMRT. Further study is needed to determine if these translate into reduced toxicity and/or improved disease control.
Authors: Kenneth C W Wong; Edwin P Hui; Kwok-Wai Lo; Wai Kei Jacky Lam; David Johnson; Lili Li; Qian Tao; Kwan Chee Allen Chan; Ka-Fai To; Ann D King; Brigette B Y Ma; Anthony T C Chan Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Joseph K Kim; Jonathan E Leeman; Nadeem Riaz; Sean McBride; Chiaojung Jillian Tsai; Nancy Y Lee Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol Date: 2018-05-09
Authors: Anaïs Jouin; Sylvie Helfre; Stéphanie Bolle; Line Claude; Anne Laprie; Emilie Bogart; Céline Vigneron; Hélène Potet; Anne Ducassou; Audrey Claren; François Georges Riet; Marie Pierre Castex; Cécile Faure-Conter; Brice Fresneau; Anne Sophie Defachelles; Daniel Orbach Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Balu Krishna Sasidharan; Saif Aljabab; Jatinder Saini; Tony Wong; George Laramore; Jay Liao; Upendra Parvathaneni; Stephen R Bowen Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2019-04-18
Authors: Andrew R Barsky; Vishruth K Reddy; John P Plastaras; Edgar Ben-Josef; James M Metz; Andrzej P Wojcieszynski Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2020-02