Sabah Falek1, Rajesh Regmi2, Joel Herault3, Melanie Dore4, Anthony Vela5, Pauline Dutheil5, Cyril Moignier5, Pierre-Yves Marcy6, Julien Drouet1, Arnaud Beddok7, Noah E Letwin8, Joel Epstein9, Upendra Parvathaneni10, Juliette Thariat11,12,13,14. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Francois Baclesse Center, Caen, France. 2. Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Institut Méditerranéen de Protonthérapie, Antoine Lacassagne Center, Nice, France. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de L'Ouest, Nantes, France. 5. Department of Medical Physics, François Baclesse Center / Proton Therapy Center, Caen, France. 6. Radiodiagnostics and Interventional Radiology, Polyclinique ELSAN, Ollioules, France. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Curie Institute, Paris, France. 8. Swedish Medical Center General Practice Residency, Seattle, WA and owner Seattle Special Care Dentistry, Seattle, WA, USA. 9. City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte CA and Cedars-Sinai Medical System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, USA. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France. jthariat@gmail.com. 12. Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire, IN2P3/ENISAEN-CNRS, Caen, France. jthariat@gmail.com. 13. Normandie Universite, Caen, France. jthariat@gmail.com. 14. SAS Cyclhad, Hérouville-Saint-Clair, France. jthariat@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite reduction of xerostomia with intensity-modulated compared to conformal X-ray radiotherapy, radiation-induced dental complications continue to occur. Proton therapy is promising in head and neck cancers to further reduce radiation-induced side-effects, but the optimal dental management has not been defined. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Dental management before proton therapy was assessed compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy based on a bicentric experience, a literature review and illustrative cases. RESULTS: Preserved teeth frequently contain metallic dental restorations (amalgams, crowns, implants). Metals blur CT images, introducing errors in tumour and organ contour during radiotherapy planning. Due to their physical interactions with matter, protons are more sensitive than photons to tissue composition. The composition of restorative materials is rarely documented during radiotherapy planning, introducing dose errors. Manual artefact recontouring, metal artefact-reduction CT algorithms, dual or multi-energy CT and appropriate dose calculation algorithms insufficiently compensate for contour and dose errors during proton therapy. Physical uncertainties may be associated with lower tumour control probability and more side-effects after proton therapy. Metal-induced errors should be quantified and removal of metal restorations discussed on a case by case basis between dental care specialists, radiation oncologists and physicists. Metallic amalgams can be replaced with water-equivalent materials and crowns temporarily removed depending on rehabilitation potential, dental condition and cost. Implants might contraindicate proton therapy if they are in the proton beam path. CONCLUSION: Metallic restorations may more severely affect proton than photon radiotherapy quality. Personalized dental care prior to proton therapy requires multidisciplinary assessment of metal-induced errors before choice of conservation/removal of dental metals and optimal radiotherapy.
INTRODUCTION: Despite reduction of xerostomia with intensity-modulated compared to conformal X-ray radiotherapy, radiation-induced dental complications continue to occur. Proton therapy is promising in head and neck cancers to further reduce radiation-induced side-effects, but the optimal dental management has not been defined. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Dental management before proton therapy was assessed compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy based on a bicentric experience, a literature review and illustrative cases. RESULTS: Preserved teeth frequently contain metallic dental restorations (amalgams, crowns, implants). Metals blur CT images, introducing errors in tumour and organ contour during radiotherapy planning. Due to their physical interactions with matter, protons are more sensitive than photons to tissue composition. The composition of restorative materials is rarely documented during radiotherapy planning, introducing dose errors. Manual artefact recontouring, metal artefact-reduction CT algorithms, dual or multi-energy CT and appropriate dose calculation algorithms insufficiently compensate for contour and dose errors during proton therapy. Physical uncertainties may be associated with lower tumour control probability and more side-effects after proton therapy. Metal-induced errors should be quantified and removal of metal restorations discussed on a case by case basis between dental care specialists, radiation oncologists and physicists. Metallic amalgams can be replaced with water-equivalent materials and crowns temporarily removed depending on rehabilitation potential, dental condition and cost. Implants might contraindicate proton therapy if they are in the proton beam path. CONCLUSION: Metallic restorations may more severely affect proton than photon radiotherapy quality. Personalized dental care prior to proton therapy requires multidisciplinary assessment of metal-induced errors before choice of conservation/removal of dental metals and optimal radiotherapy.
Authors: Jonathan E Leeman; Paul B Romesser; Ying Zhou; Sean McBride; Nadeem Riaz; Eric Sherman; Marc A Cohen; Oren Cahlon; Nancy Lee Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Joel B Epstein; Juliette Thariat; Rene-Jean Bensadoun; Andrei Barasch; Barbara A Murphy; Leanne Kolnick; Leslie Popplewell; Ellie Maghami Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Samir H Patel; Zhen Wang; William W Wong; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Courtney R Buckey; Khaled Mohammed; Fares Alahdab; Osama Altayar; Mohammed Nabhan; Steven E Schild; Robert L Foote Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Christopher M Nutting; James P Morden; Kevin J Harrington; Teresa Guerrero Urbano; Shreerang A Bhide; Catharine Clark; Elizabeth A Miles; Aisha B Miah; Kate Newbold; MaryAnne Tanay; Fawzi Adab; Sarah J Jefferies; Christopher Scrase; Beng K Yap; Roger P A'Hern; Mark A Sydenham; Marie Emson; Emma Hall Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: S Atallah; A Bozec; P Ransy; J Davrou; J Longis; M Humbert; E Brenet; P Schultz; A Damecourt; J Lacau Saint Guily; B Baujat Journal: Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 2.080
Authors: Chiaojung Jillian Tsai; Theresa M Hofstede; Erich M Sturgis; Adam S Garden; Mary E Lindberg; Qingyi Wei; Susan L Tucker; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 7.038