Dataset Information

Intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharynx cancer - A case matched analysis.

ABSTRACT: Owing to its physical properties, intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) used for patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma has the ability to reduce the dose to organs at risk compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) while maintaining adequate tumor coverage. Our aim was to compare the clinical outcomes of these two treatment modalities.We performed a 1:2 matching of IMPT to IMRT patients. Our study cohort consisted of IMPT patients from a prospective quality of life study and consecutive IMRT patients treated at a single institution during the period 2010-2014. Patients were matched on unilateral/bilateral treatment, disease site, human papillomavirus status, T and N status, smoking status, and receipt of concomitant chemotherapy. Survival analyzes were performed using a Cox model and binary toxicity endpoints using a logistic regression analysis.Fifty IMPT and 100 IMRT patients were included. The median follow-up time was 32months. There were no imbalances in patient/tumor characteristics except for age (mean age 56.8years for IMRT patients and 61.1years for IMPT patients, p-value=0.010). Statistically significant differences were not observed in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR)=0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12-2.50, p-value=0.44) or in progression-free survival (HR=1.02; 95% CI: 0.41-2.54; p-value=0.96). The age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) for the presence of a gastrostomy (G)-tube during treatment for IMPT vs IMRT were OR=0.53; 95% CI: 0.24-1.15; p-value=0.11 and OR=0.43; 95% CI: 0.16-1.17; p-value=0.10 at 3months after treatment. When considering the pre-planned composite endpoint of grade 3 weight loss or G-tube presence, the ORs were OR=0.44; 95% CI: 0.19-1.0; p-value=0.05 at 3months after treatment and OR=0.23; 95% CI: 0.07-0.73; p-value=0.01 at 1year after treatment.Our results suggest that IMPT is associated with reduced rates of feeding tube dependency and severe weight loss without jeopardizing outcome. Prospective multicenter randomized trials are needed to validate such findings.

SUBMITTER: Blanchard P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5474304 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharynx cancer - A case matched analysis.

Blanchard Pierre P Garden Adam S AS Gunn G Brandon GB Rosenthal David I DI Morrison William H WH Hernandez Mike M Crutison Joseph J Lee Jack J JJ Ye Rong R Fuller C David CD Mohamed Abdallah S R AS Hutcheson Kate A KA Holliday Emma B EB Thaker Nikhil G NG Sturgis Erich M EM Kies Merrill S MS Zhu X Ronald XR Mohan Radhe R Frank Steven J SJ

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 20160621 1

<h4>Background</h4>Owing to its physical properties, intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) used for patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma has the ability to reduce the dose to organs at risk compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) while maintaining adequate tumor coverage. Our aim was to compare the clinical outcomes of these two treatment modalities.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a 1:2 matching of IMPT to IMRT patients. Our study cohort consisted of IMPT patients from a prospectiv ...[more]

PMID: 27342249

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe compared work outcomes in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), randomized to intensity-modulated proton (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for chemoradiation therapy (CRT).Patients and methodsIn 147 patients with stage II-IVB squamous cell OPC participating in patient-reported outcomes assessments, a prespecified secondary aim of a randomized phase II/III trial of IMPT (n = 69) versus IMRT (n = 78), we compared absenteeism, presenteeism (i.e., the extent to which an employee is not fully functional at work), and work productivity losses. We used the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire at baseline (pre-CRT), at the end of CRT, and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. A one-sided Cochran-Armitage test was used to analyze within-arm temporal trends, and a χ2 test was used to compare between-arm differences. Among working patients, at each follow-up point, a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare work-productivity scores.ResultsPatient characteristics in IMPT versus IMRT arms were similar. In the IMPT arm, within-arm analysis demonstrated that an increasing proportion of patients resumed working after IMPT, from 60% (40 of 67) pre-CRT and 71% (30 of 42) at 1 year to 78% (18 of 23) at 2 years (P = 0.025). In the IMRT arm, the proportion remained stable, with 57% (43 of 76) pre-CRT, 54% (21 of 39) at 1 year, and 52% (13 of 25) working at 2 years (P = 0.47). By 2 years after CRT, the between-arm difference between patients who had IMPT and those who had IMRT trended toward significance (P = 0.06). Regardless of treatment arm, among working patients, the most severe work impairments occurred from treatment initiation to the end of CRT, with significant recovery from absenteeism, presenteeism, and productivity impairments by the 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001 for all). Higher magnitudes of recovery from absenteeism (at 1 year, P = 0.05; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) and composite work impairment scores (at 1 year, P = 0.04; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) were seen in patients treated with IMPT versus those treated with IMRT.ConclusionIn patients with OPC receiving curative CRT, patients randomized to IMPT demonstrated increasing work and productivity recovery trends. Studies are needed to identify mechanisms underlying head and neck CRT treatment causing work disability and impairment.

Project description:This paper presents a concept for a proton therapy system capable of delivering intensity modulated proton therapy using a fan beam of protons. This system would allow present and future gantry-based facilities to deliver state-of-the-art proton therapy with the greater normal tissue sparing made possible by intensity modulation techniques.A method for producing a divergent fan beam of protons using a pair of electromagnetic quadrupoles is described and particle transport through the quadrupole doublet is simulated using a commercially available software package. To manipulate the fan beam of protons, a modulation device is developed. This modulator inserts or retracts acrylic leaves of varying thickness from subsections of the fan beam. Each subsection, or beam channel, creates what effectively becomes a beam spot within the fan area. Each channel is able to provide 0-255 mm of range shift for its associated beam spot, or stop the beam and act as an intensity modulator. Results of particle transport simulations through the quadrupole system are incorporated into the MCNPX Monte Carlo transport code along with a model of the range and intensity modulation device. Several design parameters were investigated and optimized, culminating in the ability to create topotherapy treatment plans using distal-edge tracking on both phantom and patient datasets.Beam transport calculations show that a pair of electromagnetic quadrupoles can be used to create a divergent fan beam of 200 MeV protons over a distance of 2.1 m. The quadrupole lengths were 30 and 48 cm, respectively, with transverse field gradients less than 20 T/m, which is within the range of water-cooled magnets for the quadrupole radii used. MCNPX simulations of topotherapy treatment plans suggest that, when using the distal edge tracking delivery method, many delivery angles are more important than insisting on narrow beam channel widths in order to obtain conformal target coverage. Overall, the sharp distal falloff of a proton depth-dose distribution was found to provide sufficient control over the dose distribution to meet objectives, even with coarse lateral resolution and channel widths as large as 2 cm. Treatment plans on both phantom and patient data show that dose conformity suffers when treatments are delivered from less than approximately ten angles. Treatment time for a sample prostate delivery is estimated to be on the order of 10 min, and neutron production is estimated to be comparable to that found for existing collimated systems.Fan beam proton therapy is a method of delivering intensity modulated proton therapy which may be employed as an alternative to magnetic scanning systems. A fan beam of protons can be created by a set of quadrupole magnets and modified by a dual-purpose range and intensity modulator. This can be used to deliver inversely planned treatments, with spot intensities optimized to meet user defined dose objectives. Additionally, the ability of a fan beam delivery system to effectively treat multiple beam spots simultaneously may provide advantages as compared to spot scanning deliveries.

Project description:PurposeAlthough both intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) offer effective long-term disease control for localized prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data directly comparing the 2 modalities.MethodsThe data from 334 patients treated with conventionally fractionated (79.2 GyRBE in 44 fractions) PBT or IMRT were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to balance factors associated with biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS). Age, race, and comorbidities (not BFFS associates) remained imbalanced after matching. Univariable and covariate-adjusted multivariable (MVA) Cox regression models were used to determine if modality affected BFFS.ResultsOf 334 patients, 176 (52.7%) were included in the matched cohort with exact matching to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. With a median follow-up time of 9.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.8-10.2 years), long-term BFFS was similar between the IMRT and PBT matched arms with 8-year estimates of 85% (95% CI: 76%-91%) and 91% (95% CI: 82%-96%, P = .39), respectively. On MVA, modality was not significantly associated with BFFS in both the unmatched (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.35-1.63, P = .47) and matched (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33-2.33, P = .78) cohorts. Prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS) were also similar (P > .05). However, in an unmatched analysis, the PBT arm had significantly fewer incidences of secondary cancers within the irradiated field (0.6%, 95% CI: 0.0%-3.1% versus 4.5%, 95% CI: 1.8%-9.0%, P = .028).ConclusionsBoth PBT and IMRT offer excellent long-term disease control for PCa, with no significant differences between the 2 modalities in BFFS, PCSS, and OS in matched patients. In the unmatched cohort, fewer incidences of secondary malignancy were noted in the PBT group; however, owing to overall low incidence of secondary cancer and imbalanced patient characteristics between the 2 groups, these data are strictly hypothesis generating and require further investigation.

Project description:Purpose:Intensity modulated proton beam radiation therapy (IMPT) has a clinically significant dosimetric advantage over intensity modulated photon radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of patients with esophageal cancer, particularly for sparing the heart and lungs. We compared acute radiation therapy-related toxicities and short-term clinical outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer who received treatment with IMPT or IMRT. Methods and Materials:We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of consecutive adult patients with esophageal cancer who underwent concurrent chemoradiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT in the definitive or neoadjuvant setting from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2018, with additional follow-up data collected through January 31, 2019. Treatment-related toxicities were evaluated per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4. Survival outcomes were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results:A total of 64 patients (32 per group) were included (median follow-up time: 10 months for IMPT patients vs 14 months for IMRT patients). The most common radiation therapy regimen was 45 Gy in 25 fractions, and 80% of patients received a simultaneous integrated boost to a median cumulative dose of 50 Gy. Similar numbers of IMPT patients (n = 15; 47%) and IMRT patients (n = 18; 56%) underwent surgery (P = .07), with no difference in pathologic complete response rates (IMPT: n = 5; 33% vs IMRT: n = 7; 39%; P = .14). At 1 year, the clinical outcomes also were similar for IMPT and IMRT patients, respectively. Local control was 92% versus 84% (P = .87), locoregional control 92% versus 80% (P = .76), distant metastasis-free survival 87% versus 65% (P = .08), progression-free survival 71% versus 45% (P = .15), and overall survival 74% versus 71% (P = .62). The rate of acute treatment-related grade 3 toxicity was similar between the groups (P = .71). Conclusions:In our early experience, IMPT is a safe and effective treatment when administered as part of definitive or trimodality therapy. Longer follow-up is required to evaluate the effectiveness of IMPT.

Dataset Information

Intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharynx cancer - A case matched analysis.

Publications

Intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharynx cancer - A case matched analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets