Advertisement

Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of head and neck cancer: A dosimetric comparison

Published:February 26, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2021.02.001

      Abstract

      It is the goal of this study to compare the dosimetric advantages of IMPT when compared to IMRT. From January 2019 to August 2020, 25 patients were treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) at our institution for either recurrent, metastatic, benign, or primary tumors in the head and neck region. Twenty-one patients met criteria for dosimetric analysis. Histology of disease included squamous cell carcinoma, acinic cell carcinoma, sarcomatoid sinonasal carcinoma, paraganglioma, adenoid cystic carcinoma, salivary high grade carcinoma, and papillary thyroid carcinoma. For IMRT planning, gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) were contoured with the expansion of 3-5 mm to create the planning target volume (PTV) and dose was prescribed to the PTV. For the IMPT planning, dose was prescribed to CTV and robust optimization was utilized which accounted for a 5 mm setup and range uncertainty. The minimum, mean and maximum target doses for IMRT and IMPT plans as well as mean and maximum normal tissue doses are reported for the 21 patients meeting criteria. Mean doses for IMRT and IMPT were 6278.2 cGy and 6449.8 cGyRBE respectively with p-value of 0.0001. Maximum doses for IMRT and IMPT were 6579.5 cGy and 6772.1 cGyRBE respectively with p-value of 0.0014. Minimum doses for IMRT and IMPT were 5440.6 cGy and 5617.9 cGyRBE respectively with p-value of 0.3576. IMPT had an overall advantage in OAR doses in the brain stem, spinal cord, optic structures, cochlea, larynx, contralateral parotid, and oral cavity with only a few exceptions. Our study thus demonstrates a dosimetric advantage for IMPT in treating head and neck tumors in mean and max dose delivered as well as dose to OARs. Given that our patient cohort were mainly unilateral head and neck cases, our study supports the treatment of this specific subset of patients regardless of histology with IMPT. This may aid in appropriate patient selection for IMPT treatment. Further studies will need to determine if this dosimetric advantage translates to a therapeutic advantage for patients.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Medical Dosimetry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Mishra K.K.
        • Daftari I.K.
        Proton therapy for the management of uveal melanoma and other ocular tumors.
        Chin. Clin. Oncol. 2016; 5: 50
        • Slater J.D.
        • Yonemoto L.T.
        • Ross Jr., C.J.
        • et al.
        Conformal proton therapy for prostate carcinoma.
        Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1998; 42: 299-304
        • Noel G.
        • Habrand J.L.
        • Jauffret E.
        • et al.
        Radiation therapy for chorfoma and chondrosarcoma of the skull base and the cervical spine: prognostic factors and pattern of failure.
        Strahlenther. Onkol. 2003; 179: 241-248
        • Cozzi L.
        • Fogiliata A.
        • Lomax A.
        • Bolsi A.
        A treatment planning comparison of 3D conformal therapy, intensity modulated photon therapy and proton therapy for treatment of advanced head and neck tumors.
        Radiother. Oncol. 2001; 61: 287-297
        • Matthiesen C.
        • Herman T.D.L.F.
        • Singh H.
        • et al.
        Dosimetric and radiobiologic comparison of 3D conformal, IMRT, VMAT and proton therapy for the treatment of early-stage glottic cancer.
        J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015; 59: 221-228
        • Moreno A.C.
        • Frank S.J.
        • Garden A.S.
        • et al.
        Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT)—the future of IMRT for head and neck cancer.
        Oral Oncol. 2019; 88: 66-74
        • Frank S.J.
        • Blanchard P.
        • Lee J.J.
        • et al.
        Comparing intensity-modulated proton therapy with intensity-modulated photon therapy for oropharyngeal cancer: the journey from clinical trial concept to activation.
        Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 2018; 28: 108-113
        • Chiang B.H.
        • Bunker A.
        • Jin H.
        • Ahmad S.
        • Chen Y.
        Developing a Monte Carlo model for Mevion S250i with HYPERSCAN and Adaptive ApertureTM pencil beam scanning proton therapy system.
        J. Radiother. Pract. 2020; (page): 1-8https://doi.org/10.1017/S14603969200266
        • Bentzen S.M.
        • Constine L.S.
        • Deasy J.O.
        • et al.
        Quantitative analysis of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC): an introduction to the scientific issues.
        Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2010; 76: S3-S9
      1. Varian Medical Systems Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA

      2. RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden.

        • Kataria T
        • Sharma K
        • Subramani V
        • Karrthick K.P.
        • Bisht S.S.
        Homogeneity index: an objective tool for assessment of conformal radiation treatments.
        J. Med. Phys. 2012; 37: 207-213
        • Yan L
        • Xu Y
        • Chen X
        • Xie X
        • Liang B
        • Dai J.
        A new homogeneity index definition for evaluation of radiotherapy plans.
        J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2019; 20: 50-56
        • Romesser P.B.
        • Cahlon O.
        • Scher E.
        • et al.
        Proton beam radiation therapy results in significantly reduced toxicity compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck tumors that require ipsilateral radiation.
        Radiother. Oncol. 2016; 118 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.12.008): 286-292
      3. Study of proton versus photon beam radiotherapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer 2021, Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02923570

        • Liu G.
        • Li X.
        • Qin A.
        • et al.
        Improve the dosimetric outcome in bilateral head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment using spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy: a feasibility study.
        Radiat. Oncol. 2020; 15 (21page): 1-11https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-1476-9