Paul B Romesser1, Oren Cahlon2, Eli Scher3, Ying Zhou4, Sean L Berry1, Alisa Rybkin1, Kevin M Sine5, Shikui Tang5, Eric J Sherman6, Richard Wong7, Nancy Y Lee8. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States; ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, United States. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States; Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, United States. 4. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States. 5. ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, United States. 6. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States. 7. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States. Electronic address: leen2@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As proton beam radiation therapy (PBRT) may allow greater normal tissue sparing when compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), we compared the dosimetry and treatment-related toxicities between patients treated to the ipsilateral head and neck with either PBRT or IMRT. METHODS: Between 01/2011 and 03/2014, 41 consecutive patients underwent ipsilateral irradiation for major salivary gland cancer or cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The availability of PBRT, during this period, resulted in an immediate shift in practice from IMRT to PBRT, without any change in target delineation. Acute toxicities were assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. RESULTS: Twenty-three (56.1%) patients were treated with IMRT and 18 (43.9%) with PBRT. The groups were balanced in terms of baseline, treatment, and target volume characteristics. IMRT plans had a greater median maximum brainstem (29.7 Gy vs. 0.62 Gy (RBE), P < 0.001), maximum spinal cord (36.3 Gy vs. 1.88 Gy (RBE), P < 0.001), mean oral cavity (20.6 Gy vs. 0.94 Gy (RBE), P < 0.001), mean contralateral parotid (1.4 Gy vs. 0.0 Gy (RBE), P<0.001), and mean contralateral submandibular (4.1 Gy vs. 0.0 Gy (RBE), P < 0.001) dose when compared to PBRT plans. PBRT had significantly lower rates of grade 2 or greater acute dysgeusia (5.6% vs. 65.2%, P<0.001), mucositis (16.7% vs. 52.2%, P=0.019), and nausea (11.1% vs. 56.5%, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The unique properties of PBRT allow greater normal tissue sparing without sacrificing target coverage when irradiating the ipsilateral head and neck. This dosimetric advantage seemingly translates into lower rates of acute treatment-related toxicity.
BACKGROUND: As proton beam radiation therapy (PBRT) may allow greater normal tissue sparing when compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), we compared the dosimetry and treatment-related toxicities between patients treated to the ipsilateral head and neck with either PBRT or IMRT. METHODS: Between 01/2011 and 03/2014, 41 consecutive patients underwent ipsilateral irradiation for major salivary gland cancer or cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The availability of PBRT, during this period, resulted in an immediate shift in practice from IMRT to PBRT, without any change in target delineation. Acute toxicities were assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. RESULTS: Twenty-three (56.1%) patients were treated with IMRT and 18 (43.9%) with PBRT. The groups were balanced in terms of baseline, treatment, and target volume characteristics. IMRT plans had a greater median maximum brainstem (29.7 Gy vs. 0.62 Gy (RBE), P < 0.001), maximum spinal cord (36.3 Gy vs. 1.88 Gy (RBE), P < 0.001), mean oral cavity (20.6 Gy vs. 0.94 Gy (RBE), P < 0.001), mean contralateral parotid (1.4 Gy vs. 0.0 Gy (RBE), P<0.001), and mean contralateral submandibular (4.1 Gy vs. 0.0 Gy (RBE), P < 0.001) dose when compared to PBRT plans. PBRT had significantly lower rates of grade 2 or greater acute dysgeusia (5.6% vs. 65.2%, P<0.001), mucositis (16.7% vs. 52.2%, P=0.019), and nausea (11.1% vs. 56.5%, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The unique properties of PBRT allow greater normal tissue sparing without sacrificing target coverage when irradiating the ipsilateral head and neck. This dosimetric advantage seemingly translates into lower rates of acute treatment-related toxicity.
Authors: M A Hunt; M J Zelefsky; S Wolden; C S Chui; T LoSasso; K Rosenzweig; L Chong; S V Spirou; L Fromme; M Lumley; H A Amols; C C Ling; S A Leibel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Bram L T Ramaekers; Madelon Pijls-Johannesma; Manuela A Joore; Piet van den Ende; Johannes A Langendijk; Philippe Lambin; Alfons G H Kessels; Janneke P C Grutters Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Paul B Romesser; Jonathan C Romanyshyn; Karen D Schupak; Jeremy Setton; Nadeem Riaz; Suzanne L Wolden; Daphna Y Gelblum; Eric J Sherman; Dennis Kraus; Nancy Y Lee Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Tara A van de Water; Antony J Lomax; Hendrik P Bijl; Marije E de Jong; Cornelis Schilstra; Eugen B Hug; Johannes A Langendijk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-08-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Johannes A Langendijk; Patricia Doornaert; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Charles R Leemans; Neil K Aaronson; Ben J Slotman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marije R Vergeer; Patricia A H Doornaert; Derek H F Rietveld; C René Leemans; Ben J Slotman; Johannes A Langendijk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-12-26 Impact factor: 7.038
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
Authors: Thomas H Beckham; Jonathan Leeman; Chiaojung Jillian Tsai; Nadeem Riaz; Eric Sherman; Bhuvanesh Singh; Nancy Lee; Sean McBride; Daniel S Higginson Journal: Head Neck Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Francesco Dionisi; Maurizio Amichetti; Carlo Algranati; Irene Giacomelli; Mattia Barbareschi; Mauro Recla; Cesare Grandi Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2017-09-26
Authors: Adepitan A Owosho; SaeHee K Yom; Zhiqiang Han; Kevin Sine; Nancy Y Lee; Joseph M Huryn; Cherry L Estilo Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Date: 2016-07-19
Authors: Ming Fan; Jung Julie Kang; Anna Lee; Dan Fan; Huili Wang; Sarin Kitpanit; Pamela Fox; Kevin Sine; Dennis Mah; Sean M McBride; Chiaojung Jillian Tsai; Nadeem Riaz; Lara A Dunn; Eric J Sherman; Loren Michel; Bhuvanesh Singh; Ian Ganly; Richard J Wong; Jay O Boyle; Marc A Cohen; Nancy Y Lee Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 6.860
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