Dataset Information

Proton beam therapy for locally advanced lung cancer: A review.

ABSTRACT: Protons interact with human tissue differently than do photons and these differences can be exploited in an attempt to improve the care of lung cancer patients. This review examines proton beam therapy (PBT) as a component of a combined modality program for locally advanced lung cancers. It was specifically written for the non-radiation oncologist who desires greater understanding of this newer treatment modality. This review describes and compares photon (X-ray) radiotherapy (XRT) to PBT. The physical differences of these beams are described and the clinical literature is reviewed. Protons can be used to create treatment plans delivering significantly lower doses of radiation to the adjacent organs at risk (lungs, esophagus, and bone marrow) than photons. Clinically, PBT combined with chemotherapy has resulted in low rates of toxicity compared to XRT. Early results suggest a possible improvement in survival. The clinical results of proton therapy in lung cancer patients reveal relatively low rates of toxicity and possible survival benefits. One randomized study is being performed and another is planned to clarify the clinical differences in patient outcome for PBT compared to XRT. Along with the development of better systemic therapy, newer forms of radiotherapy such as PBT should positively impact the care of lung cancer patients. This review provides the reader with the current status of this new technology in treating locally advanced lung cancer.

SUBMITTER: Schild SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4129522 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Proton beam therapy for locally advanced lung cancer: A review.

Schild Steven E SE Rule William G WG Ashman Jonathan B JB Vora Sujay A SA Keole Sameer S Anand Aman A Liu Wei W Bues Martin M

World journal of clinical oncology 20141001 4

Protons interact with human tissue differently than do photons and these differences can be exploited in an attempt to improve the care of lung cancer patients. This review examines proton beam therapy (PBT) as a component of a combined modality program for locally advanced lung cancers. It was specifically written for the non-radiation oncologist who desires greater understanding of this newer treatment modality. This review describes and compares photon (X-ray) radiotherapy (XRT) to PBT. The p ...[more]

PMID: 25302161

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWhether dosimetric advantages of proton beam therapy (PBT) translate to improved clinical outcomes compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) remains unclear. This randomized trial compared total toxicity burden (TTB) and progression-free survival (PFS) between these modalities for esophageal cancer.MethodsThis phase IIB trial randomly assigned patients to PBT or IMRT (50.4 Gy), stratified for histology, resectability, induction chemotherapy, and stage. The prespecified coprimary end points were TTB and PFS. TTB, a composite score of 11 distinct adverse events (AEs), including common toxicities as well as postoperative complications (POCs) in operated patients, quantified the extent of AE severity experienced over the duration of 1 year following treatment. The trial was conducted using Bayesian group sequential design with three planned interim analyses at 33%, 50%, and 67% of expected accrual (adjusted for follow-up).ResultsThis trial (commenced April 2012) was approved for closure and analysis upon activation of NRG-GI006 in March 2019, which occurred immediately prior to the planned 67% interim analysis. Altogether, 145 patients were randomly assigned (72 IMRT, 73 PBT), and 107 patients (61 IMRT, 46 PBT) were evaluable. Median follow-up was 44.1 months. Fifty-one patients (30 IMRT, 21 PBT) underwent esophagectomy; 80% of PBT was passive scattering. The posterior mean TTB was 2.3 times higher for IMRT (39.9; 95% highest posterior density interval, 26.2-54.9) than PBT (17.4; 10.5-25.0). The mean POC score was 7.6 times higher for IMRT (19.1; 7.3-32.3) versus PBT (2.5; 0.3-5.2). The posterior probability that mean TTB was lower for PBT compared with IMRT was 0.9989, which exceeded the trial's stopping boundary of 0.9942 at the 67% interim analysis. The 3-year PFS rate (50.8% v 51.2%) and 3-year overall survival rates (44.5% v 44.5%) were similar.ConclusionFor locally advanced esophageal cancer, PBT reduced the risk and severity of AEs compared with IMRT while maintaining similar PFS.

Project description:BackgroundProton pencil beam (PB) dose calculation algorithms have limited accuracy within heterogeneous tissues of lung cancer patients, which may be addressed by modern commercial Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms. We investigated clinical pencil beam scanning (PBS) dose differences between PB and MC-based treatment planning for lung cancer patients.MethodsWith IRB approval, a comparative dosimetric analysis between RayStation MC and PB dose engines was performed on ten patient plans. PBS gantry plans were generated using single-field optimization technique to maintain target coverage under range and setup uncertainties. Dose differences between PB-optimized (PBopt), MC-recalculated (MCrecalc), and MC-optimized (MCopt) plans were recorded for the following region-of-interest metrics: clinical target volume (CTV) V95, CTV homogeneity index (HI), total lung V20, total lung VRX (relative lung volume receiving prescribed dose or higher), and global maximum dose. The impact of PB-based and MC-based planning on robustness to systematic perturbation of range (±3% density) and setup (±3 mm isotropic) was assessed. Pairwise differences in dose parameters were evaluated through non-parametric Friedman and Wilcoxon sign-rank testing.ResultsIn this ten-patient sample, CTV V95 decreased significantly from 99-100% for PBopt to 77-94% for MCrecalc and recovered to 99-100% for MCopt (P<10-5). The median CTV HI (D95/D5) decreased from 0.98 for PBopt to 0.91 for MCrecalc and increased to 0.95 for MCopt (P<10-3). CTV D95 robustness to range and setup errors improved under MCopt (ΔD95 =-1%) compared to MCrecalc (ΔD95 =-6%, P=0.006). No changes in lung dosimetry were observed for large volumes receiving low to intermediate doses (e.g., V20), while differences between PB-based and MC-based planning were noted for small volumes receiving high doses (e.g., VRX). Global maximum patient dose increased from 106% for PBopt to 109% for MCrecalc and 112% for MCopt (P<10-3).ConclusionsMC dosimetry revealed a reduction in target dose coverage under PB-based planning that was regained under MC-based planning along with improved plan robustness. MC-based optimization and dose calculation should be integrated into clinical planning workflows of lung cancer patients receiving actively scanned proton therapy.

Dataset Information

Proton beam therapy for locally advanced lung cancer: A review.

Publications

Proton beam therapy for locally advanced lung cancer: A review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets