Carmen Stromberger1, Luca Cozzi2, Volker Budach3, Antonella Fogliata2, Pirus Ghadjar3, Waldemar Wlodarczyk3, Basil Jamil4, Jan D Raguse5, Arne Böttcher6, Simone Marnitz3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. carmen.stromberger@charite.de. 2. Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Cancer Center Milan, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. 4. Praxis für Strahlentherapie, Klinikum Frankfurt Oder, Frankfurt Oder, Germany. 5. Clinic for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Berlin, Germany. 6. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: To compare simultaneous integrated boost plans for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), helical tomotherapy (HT), and RapidArc therapy (RA) for patients with head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck received definitive chemoradiation with bilateral (n = 14) or unilateral (n = 6) neck irradiation and were planned using IMPT, HT, and RA with 54.4, 60.8, and 70.4 GyE/Gy in 32 fractions. Dose distributions, coverage, conformity, homogeneity to planning target volumes (PTV)s and sparing of organs at risk and normal tissue were compared. RESULTS: All unilateral and bilateral plans showed excellent PTV coverage and acceptable dose conformity. For unilateral treatment, IMPT delivered substantially lower mean doses to contralateral salivary glands (< 0.001-1.1 Gy) than both rotational techniques did (parotid gland: 6-10 Gy; submandibular gland: 15-20 Gy). Regarding the sparing of classical organs at risk for bilateral treatment, IMPT and HT were similarly excellent and RA was satisfactory. CONCLUSION: For unilateral neck irradiation, IMPT may minimize the dry mouth risk in this subgroup but showed no advantage over HT for bilateral neck treatment regarding classical organ-at-risk sparing. All methods satisfied modern standards regarding toxicity and excellent target coverage for unilateral and bilateral treatment of head and neck cancer at the planning level.
AIM: To compare simultaneous integrated boost plans for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), helical tomotherapy (HT), and RapidArc therapy (RA) for patients with head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck received definitive chemoradiation with bilateral (n = 14) or unilateral (n = 6) neck irradiation and were planned using IMPT, HT, and RA with 54.4, 60.8, and 70.4 GyE/Gy in 32 fractions. Dose distributions, coverage, conformity, homogeneity to planning target volumes (PTV)s and sparing of organs at risk and normal tissue were compared. RESULTS: All unilateral and bilateral plans showed excellent PTV coverage and acceptable dose conformity. For unilateral treatment, IMPT delivered substantially lower mean doses to contralateral salivary glands (< 0.001-1.1 Gy) than both rotational techniques did (parotid gland: 6-10 Gy; submandibular gland: 15-20 Gy). Regarding the sparing of classical organs at risk for bilateral treatment, IMPT and HT were similarly excellent and RA was satisfactory. CONCLUSION: For unilateral neck irradiation, IMPT may minimize the dry mouth risk in this subgroup but showed no advantage over HT for bilateral neck treatment regarding classical organ-at-risk sparing. All methods satisfied modern standards regarding toxicity and excellent target coverage for unilateral and bilateral treatment of head and neck cancer at the planning level.
Authors: Vincent Grégoire; Peter Levendag; Kian K Ang; Jacques Bernier; Marijel Braaksma; Volker Budach; Cliff Chao; Emmanuel Coche; Jay S Cooper; Guy Cosnard; Avraham Eisbruch; Samy El-Sayed; Bahman Emami; Cai Grau; Marc Hamoir; Nancy Lee; Philippe Maingon; Karin Muller; Hervé Reychler Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Joanna Góra; Peter Kuess; Markus Stock; Piotr Andrzejewski; Barbara Knäusl; Brigita Paskeviciute; Gabriela Altorjai; Dietmar Georg Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Aafke C Kraan; Steven van de Water; David N Teguh; Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Tom Madden; Hanne M Kooy; Ben J M Heijmen; Mischa S Hoogeman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Annelies Maes; Caroline Weltens; Patrick Flamen; Philippe Lambin; Ria Bogaerts; Xuan Liu; Jan Baetens; Robert Hermans; Walter Van den Bogaert Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Stephen R Grant; Tyler D Williamson; Sonja Stieb; Shalin J Shah; C David Fuller; David I Rosenthal; Steven J Frank; Adam S Garden; William H Morrison; Jack Phan; Amy C Moreno; Jay P Reddy; Richard C Cardoso; Amy Y Liu; Richard Y Wu; G Brandon Gunn Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-08-25
Authors: Anna Lee; Julie Kang; Yao Yu; Sean McBride; Nadeem Riaz; Marc Cohen; Eric Sherman; Loren Michel; Nancy Lee; C Jillian Tsai Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2019-04-22
Authors: Jianzhong Cao; Xiaodong Zhang; Bo Jiang; Jiayun Chen; Xiaochun Wang; Li Wang; Narayan Sahoo; X Ronald Zhu; Rong Ye; Pierre Blanchard; Adam S Garden; C David Fuller; G Brandon Gunn; Steven J Frank Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 6.901
Authors: Steffi U Pigorsch; Severin Kampfer; Markus Oechsner; Michael C Mayinger; Petra Mozes; Michal Devecka; Kerstin K Kessel; Stephanie E Combs; Jan J Wilkens Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 3.481