BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of proton centers capable of delivering pencil beam scanning (PBS), understanding the dosimetric differences in PBS compared to passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) for pancreatic cancer is of interest. METHODS: Optimized PBS plans were retrospectively generated for 11 patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with PSPT to 59.4 Gy on a prospective trial. The primary tumor was targeted without elective nodal coverage. The same treatment couch, target coverage and normal tissue dose objectives were used for all plans. A Wilcoxon t-test was performed to compare various dosimetric points between the two plans for each patient. RESULTS: All target volume coverage goals were met in all PBS and passive scattering (PS) plans, except for the planning target volume (PTV) coverage goal (V100% >95%) which was not met in one PS plan (range, 81.8-98.9%). PBS was associated with a lower median relative dose (102.4% vs. 103.8%) to 10% of the PTV (P=0.001). PBS plans had a lower median duodenal V59.4 Gy (37.4% vs. 40.4%; P=0.014), lower small bowel median V59.4 Gy (0.11% vs. 0.37%; P=0.012), lower stomach median V59.4 Gy (0.01% vs. 0.1%; P=0.023), and lower median dose to 0.1 cc of the spinal cord {35.0 vs. 38.7 Gy [relative biological effectiveness (RBE)]; P=0.001}. Liver dose was higher in PBS plans for median V5 Gy (24.1% vs. 20.2%; P=0.032), V20 Gy (3.2% vs. 2.8%; P=0.010), and V25 Gy (2.6% vs. 2.2%; P=0.019). There was no difference in kidney dose between PBS and PS plans. CONCLUSIONS: Proton therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer using PBS was not clearly associated with clinically meaningful reductions in normal tissue dose compared to PS. Some statistically significant improvements in PTV coverage were achieved using PBS. PBS may offer improved conformality for the treatment of irregular targets, and further evaluation of PBS and PS incorporating elective nodal irradiation should be considered.
BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of proton centers capable of delivering pencil beam scanning (PBS), understanding the dosimetric differences in PBS compared to passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) for pancreatic cancer is of interest. METHODS: Optimized PBS plans were retrospectively generated for 11 patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with PSPT to 59.4 Gy on a prospective trial. The primary tumor was targeted without elective nodal coverage. The same treatment couch, target coverage and normal tissue dose objectives were used for all plans. A Wilcoxon t-test was performed to compare various dosimetric points between the two plans for each patient. RESULTS: All target volume coverage goals were met in all PBS and passive scattering (PS) plans, except for the planning target volume (PTV) coverage goal (V100% >95%) which was not met in one PS plan (range, 81.8-98.9%). PBS was associated with a lower median relative dose (102.4% vs. 103.8%) to 10% of the PTV (P=0.001). PBS plans had a lower median duodenal V59.4 Gy (37.4% vs. 40.4%; P=0.014), lower small bowel median V59.4 Gy (0.11% vs. 0.37%; P=0.012), lower stomach median V59.4 Gy (0.01% vs. 0.1%; P=0.023), and lower median dose to 0.1 cc of the spinal cord {35.0 vs. 38.7 Gy [relative biological effectiveness (RBE)]; P=0.001}. Liver dose was higher in PBS plans for median V5 Gy (24.1% vs. 20.2%; P=0.032), V20 Gy (3.2% vs. 2.8%; P=0.010), and V25 Gy (2.6% vs. 2.2%; P=0.019). There was no difference in kidney dose between PBS and PS plans. CONCLUSIONS: Proton therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer using PBS was not clearly associated with clinically meaningful reductions in normal tissue dose compared to PS. Some statistically significant improvements in PTV coverage were achieved using PBS. PBS may offer improved conformality for the treatment of irregular targets, and further evaluation of PBS and PS incorporating elective nodal irradiation should be considered.
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: H M Ceha; G van Tienhoven; D J Gouma; C H Veenhof; C J Schneider; E A Rauws; S S Phoa; D González González Journal: Cancer Date: 2000-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Edgar Ben-Josef; Mathew Schipper; Isaac R Francis; Scott Hadley; Randall Ten-Haken; Theodore Lawrence; Daniel Normolle; Diane M Simeone; Christopher Sonnenday; Ross Abrams; William Leslie; Gazala Khan; Mark M Zalupski Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-04-27 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: Jiayi Huang; John M Robertson; Hong Ye; Jeffrey Margolis; Laura Nadeau; Di Yan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sunil Krishnan; Awalpreet S Chadha; Yelin Suh; Hsiang-Chun Chen; Arvind Rao; Prajnan Das; Bruce D Minsky; Usama Mahmood; Marc E Delclos; Gabriel O Sawakuchi; Sam Beddar; Matthew H Katz; Jason B Fleming; Milind M Javle; Gauri R Varadhachary; Robert A Wolff; Christopher H Crane Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mylin A Torres; Eric L Chang; Anita Mahajan; David G Lege; Beverly A Riley; Xiaodong Zhang; MingFwu Lii; David G Kornguth; Christopher E Pelloski; Shiao Y Woo Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-04-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David R Grosshans; X Ronald Zhu; Adam Melancon; Pamela K Allen; Falk Poenisch; Matthew Palmer; Mary Frances McAleer; Susan L McGovern; Michael Gillin; Franco DeMonte; Eric L Chang; Paul D Brown; Anita Mahajan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eric J Lehrer; Arpan V Prabhu; Kunal K Sindhu; Stanislav Lazarev; Henry Ruiz-Garcia; Jennifer L Peterson; Chris Beltran; Keith Furutani; David Schlesinger; Jason P Sheehan; Daniel M Trifiletti Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2021-01-03
Authors: Sarah Stefanowicz; Waldemar Wlodarczyk; Susanne Frosch; Sebastian Zschaeck; Esther G C Troost Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-12-09
Authors: Marie Lecornu; Paul Lesueur; Julia Salleron; Jacques Balosso; Dinu Stefan; William Kao; Tiphaine Plouhinec; Anthony Vela; Pauline Dutheil; Jordan Bouter; Pierre-Alban Marty; Juliette Thariat; Jean-Claude Quintyn Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 6.244