PURPOSE: Conformal treatment planning with megavoltage x-rays and protons for five patients with esophageal cancer has been studied in an attempt to determine if there are advantages of using protons instead of x-rays. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For each of the five patients, two different proton plans, one x-ray plan, and one mixed plan with x-rays and protons were made. A three-dimensional treatment planning system, TMS, was used. The evaluation of the different plans was made by applying the tumor control probability (TCP) model proposed by Nahum and Webb and the normal tissue complication (NTCP) model proposed by Lyman on the dose distributions in terms of dose-volume histograms (DVHs). RESULTS: The comparison shows advantages of using protons instead of x-rays for all five patients. The dose-limiting organs at risk are the spinal cord, the lungs, and the heart, but the proton plans also spare the kidneys better than the x-ray plan does. At 5% NTCP in any risk organ, the calculated mean TCP value for the five patients is increased by an average of 20%-units (from 2 to 23%-units) with the best proton plan compared with x-rays only. However, if we assume maximally a 1% risk in the spinal cord and a total NTCP for the two lungs of 100%, the mean TCP value for the five patients is increased from 6 to 49% with the best proton plan compared with x-rays only. The corresponding figure for the mixed plan is 27%. These gains are relatively insensitive to variations within reasonable limits in the biological parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Protons appear to have clear therapeutic advantages over conventional external radiotherapy when treating esophageal carcinoma.
PURPOSE: Conformal treatment planning with megavoltage x-rays and protons for five patients with esophageal cancer has been studied in an attempt to determine if there are advantages of using protons instead of x-rays. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For each of the five patients, two different proton plans, one x-ray plan, and one mixed plan with x-rays and protons were made. A three-dimensional treatment planning system, TMS, was used. The evaluation of the different plans was made by applying the tumor control probability (TCP) model proposed by Nahum and Webb and the normal tissue complication (NTCP) model proposed by Lyman on the dose distributions in terms of dose-volume histograms (DVHs). RESULTS: The comparison shows advantages of using protons instead of x-rays for all five patients. The dose-limiting organs at risk are the spinal cord, the lungs, and the heart, but the proton plans also spare the kidneys better than the x-ray plan does. At 5% NTCP in any risk organ, the calculated mean TCP value for the five patients is increased by an average of 20%-units (from 2 to 23%-units) with the best proton plan compared with x-rays only. However, if we assume maximally a 1% risk in the spinal cord and a total NTCP for the two lungs of 100%, the mean TCP value for the five patients is increased from 6 to 49% with the best proton plan compared with x-rays only. The corresponding figure for the mixed plan is 27%. These gains are relatively insensitive to variations within reasonable limits in the biological parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Protons appear to have clear therapeutic advantages over conventional external radiotherapy when treating esophageal carcinoma.
Authors: Milan Vosmik; Jiri Petera; Igor Sirak; Miroslav Hodek; Petr Paluska; Jiri Dolezal; Marcela Kopacova Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-11-28 Impact factor: 5.742
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: 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: Alfredo E Echeverria; Matthew McCurdy; Richard Castillo; Vincent Bernard; Natalia Velez Ramos; William Buckley; Edward Castillo; Ping Liu; Josue Martinez; Thomas Guerrero Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-11-02 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Xiaodong Zhang; Kuai-le Zhao; Thomas M Guerrero; Sean E McGuire; Brian Yaremko; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Zhouguang Hui; Yupeng Li; Wayne D Newhauser; Radhe Mohan; Zhongxing Liao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Minli Wang; Megumi Hada; Janapriya Saha; Deepa M Sridharan; Janice M Pluth; Francis A Cucinotta Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-23 Impact factor: 3.240