Hideki Minatogawa1, Koichi Yasuda2,3, Yasuhiro Dekura2, Seishin Takao4, Taeko Matsuura4, Takaaki Yoshimura4,5, Ryusuke Suzuki4, Isao Yokota6, Noriyuki Fujima7, Rikiya Onimaru1, Shinichi Shimizu3,8, Hidefumi Aoyama1, Hiroki Shirato1,3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan. 3. Global Station for Quantum Medical Science and Engineering, Global Institution for Collaborative Research and Education (GI-CoRE), Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan. 4. Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan. 5. Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan. 6. Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan. 7. Department of Radiology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Department of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine and Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate potential advantages of adaptive intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (A-IMPT) by comparing it to adaptive intensity-modulated X-ray therapy (A-IMXT) for nasopharyngeal carcinomas (NPC). METHODS: Ten patients with NPC treated with A-IMXT (step and shoot approach) and concomitant chemotherapy between 2014 and 2016 were selected. In the actual treatment, 46 Gy in 23 fractions (46Gy/23Fx.) was prescribed using the initial plan and 24Gy/12Fx was prescribed using an adapted plan thereafter. New treatment planning of A-IMPT was made for the same patients using equivalent dose fractionation schedule and dose constraints. The dose volume statistics based on deformable images and dose accumulation was used in the comparison of A-IMXT with A-IMPT. RESULTS: The means of the Dmean of the right parotid gland (P < 0.001), right TM joint (P < 0.001), left TM joint (P < 0.001), oral cavity (P < 0.001), supraglottic larynx (P = 0.001), glottic larynx (P < 0.001), , middle PCM (P = 0.0371), interior PCM (P < 0.001), cricopharyngeal muscle (P = 0.03643), and thyroid gland (P = 0.00216), in A-IMPT are lower than those of A-IMXT, with statistical significance. The means of, D0.03cc , and Dmean of each sub portion of auditory apparatus and D30% for Eustachian tube and D0.5cc for mastoid volume in A-IMPT are significantly lower than those of A-IMXT. The mean doses to the oral cavity, supraglottic larynx, and glottic larynx were all reduced by more than 20 Gy (RBE = 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: An adaptive approach is suggested to enhance the potential benefit of IMPT compared to IMXT to reduce adverse effects for patients with NPC.
PURPOSE: To investigate potential advantages of adaptive intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (A-IMPT) by comparing it to adaptive intensity-modulated X-ray therapy (A-IMXT) for nasopharyngeal carcinomas (NPC). METHODS: Ten patients with NPC treated with A-IMXT (step and shoot approach) and concomitant chemotherapy between 2014 and 2016 were selected. In the actual treatment, 46 Gy in 23 fractions (46Gy/23Fx.) was prescribed using the initial plan and 24Gy/12Fx was prescribed using an adapted plan thereafter. New treatment planning of A-IMPT was made for the same patients using equivalent dose fractionation schedule and dose constraints. The dose volume statistics based on deformable images and dose accumulation was used in the comparison of A-IMXT with A-IMPT. RESULTS: The means of the Dmean of the right parotid gland (P < 0.001), right TM joint (P < 0.001), left TM joint (P < 0.001), oral cavity (P < 0.001), supraglottic larynx (P = 0.001), glottic larynx (P < 0.001), , middle PCM (P = 0.0371), interior PCM (P < 0.001), cricopharyngeal muscle (P = 0.03643), and thyroid gland (P = 0.00216), in A-IMPT are lower than those of A-IMXT, with statistical significance. The means of, D0.03cc , and Dmean of each sub portion of auditory apparatus and D30% for Eustachian tube and D0.5cc for mastoid volume in A-IMPT are significantly lower than those of A-IMXT. The mean doses to the oral cavity, supraglottic larynx, and glottic larynx were all reduced by more than 20 Gy (RBE = 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: An adaptive approach is suggested to enhance the potential benefit of IMPT compared to IMXT to reduce adverse effects for patients with NPC.
Authors: Vincent Grégoire; Kian Ang; Wilfried Budach; Cai Grau; Marc Hamoir; Johannes A Langendijk; Anne Lee; Quynh-Thu Le; Philippe Maingon; Chris Nutting; Brian O'Sullivan; Sandro V Porceddu; Benoit Lengele Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Gustavo Nader Marta; Valter Silva; Heloisa de Andrade Carvalho; Fernando Freire de Arruda; Samir Abdallah Hanna; Rafael Gadia; João Luis Fernandes da Silva; Sebastião Francisco Miranda Correa; Carlos Eduardo Cintra Vita Abreu; Rachel Riera Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Laureen Ribassin-Majed; Sophie Marguet; Anne W M Lee; Wai Tong Ng; Jun Ma; Anthony T C Chan; Pei-Yu Huang; Guopei Zhu; Daniel T T Chua; Yong Chen; Hai-Qiang Mai; Dora L W Kwong; Shie-Lee Cheah; James Moon; Yuk Tung; Kwan-Hwa Chi; George Fountzilas; Jean Bourhis; Jean Pierre Pignon; Pierre Blanchard Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Castelli; A Simon; C Lafond; N Perichon; B Rigaud; E Chajon; B De Bari; M Ozsahin; J Bourhis; R de Crevoisier Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Wai Tong Ng; Barton But; Charlene H L Wong; Cheuk-Wai Choi; Melvin L K Chua; Pierre Blanchard; Anne W M Lee Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-08-23