Yue-Can Zeng1,2, Shilpa Vyas2, Quang Dang3, Lindsay Schultz3, Stephen R Bowen2,4, Veena Shankaran5, Farhood Farjah6,7, Brant K Oelschlager8, Smith Apisarnthanarax2, Jing Zeng9. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, 39 Huaxiang Road, 110022, Shenyang, China. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Campus Box 356043, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, 1570 N 115th St., 98133, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. Department of Surgery, Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA. 8. Department of Surgery, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Campus Box 356043, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA. jzeng13@uw.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to present the dosimetry, feasibility, and preliminary clinical results of a novel pencil beam scanning (PBS) posterior beam technique of proton treatment for esophageal cancer in the setting of trimodality therapy. METHODS: From February 2014 to June 2015, 13 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (T3-4N0-2M0; 11 adenocarcinoma, 2 squamous cell carcinoma) were treated with trimodality therapy (neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy). Eight patients were treated with uniform scanning (US) and 5 patients were treated with a single posterior-anterior (PA) beam PBS technique with volumetric rescanning for motion mitigation. Comparison planning with PBS was performed using three plans: AP/PA beam arrangement; PA plus left posterior oblique (LPO) beams, and a single PA beam. Patient outcomes, including pathologic response and toxicity, were evaluated. RESULTS: All 13 patients completed chemoradiation to 50.4 Gy (relative biological effectiveness, RBE) and 12 patients underwent surgery. All 12 surgical patients had an R0 resection and pathologic complete response was seen in 25 %. Compared with AP/PA plans, PA plans have a lower mean heart (14.10 vs. 24.49 Gy, P < 0.01), mean stomach (22.95 vs. 31.33 Gy, P = 0.038), and mean liver dose (3.79 vs. 5.75 Gy, P = 0.004). Compared to the PA/LPO plan, the PA plan reduced the lung dose: mean lung dose (4.96 vs. 7.15 Gy, P = 0.020) and percentage volume of lung receiving 20 Gy (V20; 10 vs. 17 %, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Proton therapy with a single PA beam PBS technique for preoperative treatment of esophageal cancer appears safe and feasible.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to present the dosimetry, feasibility, and preliminary clinical results of a novel pencil beam scanning (PBS) posterior beam technique of proton treatment for esophageal cancer in the setting of trimodality therapy. METHODS: From February 2014 to June 2015, 13 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (T3-4N0-2M0; 11 adenocarcinoma, 2 squamous cell carcinoma) were treated with trimodality therapy (neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy). Eight patients were treated with uniform scanning (US) and 5 patients were treated with a single posterior-anterior (PA) beam PBS technique with volumetric rescanning for motion mitigation. Comparison planning with PBS was performed using three plans: AP/PA beam arrangement; PA plus left posterior oblique (LPO) beams, and a single PA beam. Patient outcomes, including pathologic response and toxicity, were evaluated. RESULTS: All 13 patients completed chemoradiation to 50.4 Gy (relative biological effectiveness, RBE) and 12 patients underwent surgery. All 12 surgical patients had an R0 resection and pathologic complete response was seen in 25 %. Compared with AP/PA plans, PA plans have a lower mean heart (14.10 vs. 24.49 Gy, P < 0.01), mean stomach (22.95 vs. 31.33 Gy, P = 0.038), and mean liver dose (3.79 vs. 5.75 Gy, P = 0.004). Compared to the PA/LPO plan, the PA plan reduced the lung dose: mean lung dose (4.96 vs. 7.15 Gy, P = 0.020) and percentage volume of lung receiving 20 Gy (V20; 10 vs. 17 %, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Proton therapy with a single PA beam PBS technique for preoperative treatment of esophageal cancer appears safe and feasible.
Authors: Charlie C Pan; Brian D Kavanagh; Laura A Dawson; X Allen Li; Shiva K Das; Moyed Miften; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: U Isacsson; B Lennernäs; E Grusell; B Jung; A Montelius; B Glimelius Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1998-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David A Palma; Suresh Senan; Kayoko Tsujino; Robert B Barriger; Ramesh Rengan; Marta Moreno; Jeffrey D Bradley; Tae Hyun Kim; Sara Ramella; Lawrence B Marks; Luigi De Petris; Larry Stitt; George Rodrigues Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Steven H Lin; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao; Caimiao Wei; Bevan Myles; Xiaomao Guo; Matthew Palmer; Radhe Mohan; Stephen G Swisher; Wayne L Hofstetter; Jaffer A Ajani; James D Cox Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-03-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joel Shapiro; J Jan B van Lanschot; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Pieter van Hagen; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Geke A P Hospers; Johannes J Bonenkamp; Miguel A Cuesta; Reinoud J B Blaisse; Olivier R C Busch; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Geert-Jan M Creemers; Cornelis J A Punt; John Th M Plukker; Henk M W Verheul; Ernst J Spillenaar Bilgen; Herman van Dekken; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Tom Rozema; Katharina Biermann; Jannet C Beukema; Anna H M Piet; Caroline M van Rij; Janny G Reinders; Hugo W Tilanus; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ate van der Gaast Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ravi Shridhar; Khaldoun Almhanna; Kenneth L Meredith; Matthew C Biagioli; Michael D Chuong; Alex Cruz; Sarah E Hoffe Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: Steven H Lin; Brian P Hobbs; Vivek Verma; Rebecca S Tidwell; Grace L Smith; Xiudong Lei; Erin M Corsini; Isabel Mok; Xiong Wei; Luyang Yao; Xin Wang; Ritsuko U Komaki; Joe Y Chang; Stephen G Chun; Melenda D Jeter; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; Mariela Blum-Murphy; Ara A Vaporciyan; Reza J Mehran; Albert C Koong; Saumil J Gandhi; Wayne L Hofstetter; Theodore S Hong; Thomas F Delaney; Zhongxing Liao; Radhe Mohan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-03-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jana M Kobeissi; Charles B Simone; Lara Hilal; Abraham J Wu; Haibo Lin; Christopher H Crane; Carla Hajj Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Ronik S Bhangoo; Todd A DeWees; Nathan Y Yu; Julia X Ding; Chenbin Liu; Michael A Golafshar; William G Rule; Sujay A Vora; Helen J Ross; Daniel H Ahn; Staci E Beamer; Dawn E Jaroszewski; Christopher L Hallemeier; Wei Liu; Jonathan B Ashman; Terence T Sio Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-19
Authors: Steve Braunstein; Li Wang; Wayne Newhauser; Todd Tenenholz; Yi Rong; Albert van der Kogel; Michael Dominello; Michael C Joiner; Jay Burmeister Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Michael D Chuong; Christopher L Hallemeier; Heng Li; Xiaorong Ronald Zhu; Xiaodong Zhang; Erik J Tryggestad; Jen Yu; Ming Yang; J Isabelle Choi; Minglei Kang; Wei Liu; Antje Knopf; Arturs Meijers; Jason K Molitoris; Smith Apisarnthanarax; Huan Giap; Bradford S Hoppe; Percy Lee; Joe Y Chang; Charles B Simone; Steven H Lin Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 6.244