Xue Sha1, Jinghao Duan1, Xiutong Lin1, Jian Zhu1,2, Ruohui Zhang3, Tao Sun1, Hui Wang4, Xiangjuan Meng1, Yong Yin1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China. 2. Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Digital Medicine and Computer-Assisted Surgery, Qingdao, China. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Qingdao Central Hospital, Qingdao, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Whole lung irradiation (WLI) plays a crucial role in local control in pediatric patients with lung metastases and improves patient survival. The intention of this research was to explore the advantage of cardiac sparing between photons and protons during WLI. We also propose a new solution for cardiac sparing with proton techniques. METHODS: Eleven patients with pediatric tumors and pulmonary metastasis treated with 12 Gy WLI (all received volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT)) in our institute between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively selected. Each patient was replanned with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), helical tomotherapy (HT), and two intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy (IMPT) plans (IMPT-1 and IMPT-2). IMPT-1 considered the whole lung as the planning target volume (PTV), utilizing the anteroposterior technique (0/180°). IMPT-2 was a new proton solution that we proposed in this research. This approach considered the unilateral lung as the PTV, and 3 ipsilateral fields were designed for each lung. Then, IMPT-2 was generated by summing two unilateral lung plans. The primary objective was to obtain adequate coverage (95% of the prescription dose to the PTV) while maximally sparing the dose to the heart. The PTV coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and dose-volume statistics of the heart and substructures were assessed by means of the averages of each comparison parameter. RESULTS: All treatment techniques achieved the target volume coverage required by clinical practice. HT yielded the best coverage and homogeneity for the target structure compared with other techniques. The CI from IMRT was excellent. For photon radiation therapy, the HT plan afforded superior dose sparing for the V5, V6, V7, V8, and Dmean of the heart and Dmean of the right ventricle (RV). IMRT displayed the most notable dose reductions in the V9, V10, V11, and V12 of the heart and Dmean of the right atrium (RA). The VMAT plan was the least effective on the heart and substructures. However, compared with photon radiation therapy, IMPT-1 did not show an advantage for heart protection. Interestingly, IMPT-2 provided significant superiority in cardiac sparing, including maximum dose sparing for the V5, V6, V7, V8, V9 and Dmean of the heart and Dmean of the RA, RV, left atrium (LA) and left ventricle (LV) compared to all other techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the complex anatomical relation between target volumes and organs at risk (OARs), IMPT can provide a dose advantage for organs located outside of the target area rather than within or surrounding the area. It is hoped that advances in proton therapy (PT) plan design will lead to further improvements in radiotherapy approaches and provide the best treatment choice for individual patients.
OBJECTIVE: Whole lung irradiation (WLI) plays a crucial role in local control in pediatric patients with lung metastases and improves patient survival. The intention of this research was to explore the advantage of cardiac sparing between photons and protons during WLI. We also propose a new solution for cardiac sparing with proton techniques. METHODS: Eleven patients with pediatric tumors and pulmonary metastasis treated with 12 Gy WLI (all received volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT)) in our institute between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively selected. Each patient was replanned with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), helical tomotherapy (HT), and two intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy (IMPT) plans (IMPT-1 and IMPT-2). IMPT-1 considered the whole lung as the planning target volume (PTV), utilizing the anteroposterior technique (0/180°). IMPT-2 was a new proton solution that we proposed in this research. This approach considered the unilateral lung as the PTV, and 3 ipsilateral fields were designed for each lung. Then, IMPT-2 was generated by summing two unilateral lung plans. The primary objective was to obtain adequate coverage (95% of the prescription dose to the PTV) while maximally sparing the dose to the heart. The PTV coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and dose-volume statistics of the heart and substructures were assessed by means of the averages of each comparison parameter. RESULTS: All treatment techniques achieved the target volume coverage required by clinical practice. HT yielded the best coverage and homogeneity for the target structure compared with other techniques. The CI from IMRT was excellent. For photon radiation therapy, the HT plan afforded superior dose sparing for the V5, V6, V7, V8, and Dmean of the heart and Dmean of the right ventricle (RV). IMRT displayed the most notable dose reductions in the V9, V10, V11, and V12 of the heart and Dmean of the right atrium (RA). The VMAT plan was the least effective on the heart and substructures. However, compared with photon radiation therapy, IMPT-1 did not show an advantage for heart protection. Interestingly, IMPT-2 provided significant superiority in cardiac sparing, including maximum dose sparing for the V5, V6, V7, V8, V9 and Dmean of the heart and Dmean of the RA, RV, left atrium (LA) and left ventricle (LV) compared to all other techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the complex anatomical relation between target volumes and organs at risk (OARs), IMPT can provide a dose advantage for organs located outside of the target area rather than within or surrounding the area. It is hoped that advances in proton therapy (PT) plan design will lead to further improvements in radiotherapy approaches and provide the best treatment choice for individual patients.
Authors: Daniel M Green; Yevgeny A Grigoriev; Bin Nan; Janice R Takashima; Pat A Norkool; Giulio J D'Angio; Norman E Breslow Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John A Kalapurakal; Mahesh Gopalakrishnan; David O Walterhouse; Cynthia K Rigsby; Alfred Rademaker; Irene Helenowski; Sandy Kessel; Karen Morano; Fran Laurie; Ken Ulin; Natia Esiashvili; Howard Katzenstein; Karen Marcus; David S Followill; Suzanne L Wolden; Anita Mahajan; Thomas J Fitzgerald Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Edward T H Yeh; Ann T Tong; Daniel J Lenihan; S Wamique Yusuf; Joseph Swafford; Christopher Champion; Jean-Bernard Durand; Harry Gibbs; Alireza Atef Zafarmand; Michael S Ewer Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-06-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Damien C Weber; Jean Louis Habrand; Bradford S Hoppe; Christine Hill Kayser; Nadia N Laack; Johanes A Langendijk; Shannon M MacDonald; Susan L McGovern; Luke Pater; John P Perentesis; Juliette Thariat; Beate Timmerman; Torunn I Yock; Anita Mahajan Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Eva Steliarova-Foucher; Murielle Colombet; Lynn A G Ries; Florencia Moreno; Anastasia Dolya; Freddie Bray; Peter Hesseling; Hee Young Shin; Charles A Stiller Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 41.316