Assessment of the modulation degrees of intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Park SY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6293636 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Assessment of the modulation degrees of intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans.
Park So-Yeon SY Kim Jung-In JI Chun Minsoo M Ahn Hyunjun H Park Jong Min JM
Radiation oncology (London, England) 20181213 1
<h4>Background</h4>To evaluate the modulation indices (MIs) for predicting the plan delivery accuracies of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans.<h4>Methods</h4>A total of 100 dynamic IMRT plans that used TrueBeam STx and 102 dynamic IMRT plans that used Trilogy were selected. For each plan, various MIs were calculated, which included the modulation complexity score (MCS), plan-averaged beam area (PA), plan-averaged beam irregularity (PI), plan-averaged beam modulation (PM), MI quan ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:To report the early clinical outcomes of combining intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in comparison with IMRT alone in treating oropharynx cancer (OPC) patients. The medical records of 148 OPC patients who underwent definitive radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent systemic therapy, from January 2016 till December 2019 at Samsung Medical Center, were retrospectively reviewed. During the 5.5 weeks' RT course, the initial 16 (or 18) fractions were delivered by IMRT in all patients, and the subsequent 12 (or 10) fractions were either by IMRT in 81 patients (IMRT only) or by IMPT in 67 (IMRT/IMPT combination), respectively, based on comparison of adaptive re-plan profiles and availability of equipment. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was done on 76 patients (38 from each group) for comparative analyses. With the median follow-up of 24.7 months, there was no significant difference in overall survival and progression free survival between groups, both before and after PSM. Before PSM, the IMRT/IMPT combination group experienced grade ≥ 3 acute toxicities less frequently: mucositis in 37.0% and 13.4% (p < 0.001); and analgesic quantification algorithm (AQA) in 37.0% and 19.4% (p = 0.019), respectively. The same trends were observed after PSM: mucositis in 39.5% and 15.8% (p = 0.021); and AQA in 47.4% and 21.1% (p = 0.016), respectively. In multivariate logistic regression, grade ≥ 3 mucositis was significantly less frequent in the IMRT/IMPT combination group, both before and after PSM (p = 0.027 and 0.024, respectively). AQA score ≥ 3 was also less frequent in the IMRT/IMPT combination group, both before and after PSM (p = 0.085 and 0.018, respectively). In treating the OPC patients, with comparable early oncologic outcomes, more favorable acute toxicity profiles were achieved following IMRT/IMPT combination than IMRT alone.
| S-EPMC8037748 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe describe a treatment plan optimization method for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) that avoids high values of linear energy transfer (LET) in critical structures located within or near the target volume while limiting degradation of the best possible physical dose distribution.Methods and materialsTo allow fast optimization based on dose and LET, a GPU-based Monte Carlo code was extended to provide dose-averaged LET in addition to dose for all pencil beams. After optimizing an initial IMPT plan based on physical dose, a prioritized optimization scheme is used to modify the LET distribution while constraining the physical dose objectives to values close to the initial plan. The LET optimization step is performed based on objective functions evaluated for the product of LET and physical dose (LET×D). To first approximation, LET×D represents a measure of the additional biological dose that is caused by high LET.ResultsThe method is effective for treatments where serial critical structures with maximum dose constraints are located within or near the target. We report on 5 patients with intracranial tumors (high-grade meningiomas, base-of-skull chordomas, ependymomas) in whom the target volume overlaps with the brainstem and optic structures. In all cases, high LET×D in critical structures could be avoided while minimally compromising physical dose planning objectives.ConclusionLET-based reoptimization of IMPT plans represents a pragmatic approach to bridge the gap between purely physical dose-based and relative biological effectiveness (RBE)-based planning. The method makes IMPT treatments safer by mitigating a potentially increased risk of side effects resulting from elevated RBE of proton beams near the end of range.
| S-EPMC5133459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose:To evaluate 2 published normal tissue complication probability models for radiation-induced hypothyroidism (RHT) on a large cohort of oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC) patients who were treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods and Materials:OPC patients treated with retrievable IMRT Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOMs) data and available baseline and follow-up thyroid function tests were included. Mean dose (Dmean) to the thyroid gland (TG) and its volume were calculated. The study outcome was clinical HT at least 6 months after radiation therapy, which was defined as grade ?2 HT per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grading system (symptomatic hypothyroidism that required thyroid replacement therapy). Regression analyses and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used. Receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the curve for the fitted model were calculated. Results:In the study, 360 OPC patients were included. The median age was 58 years. Most tumors (51%) originated from the base of tongue. IMRT-split field was used in 95%, and median radiation therapy dose was 69.96 Gy. In the study, 233 patients (65%) developed clinical RHT that required thyroid replacement therapy. On multivariate analysis higher Dmean and smaller TG volume maintained the statistically significant association with the risk of clinical RHT (P < .0001). Dmean was significantly higher in patients with clinical RHT versus those without (50 vs 42 Gy, P < .0001). Patients with RHT had smaller TG volume compared with those without (11.8 compared with 12.8 mL, P < .0001). AUC of 0.72 and 0.66 were identified for fitted model versus for the applied Boomsma et al and Cella et al models, respectively. Conclusions:Volume and Dmean of the TG are important predictors of clinical RHT and shall be integrated into normal tissue complication probability models for RHT. Dmean and thyroid volume should be considered during the IMRT plan optimization in OPC patients.
| S-EPMC7005113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:We hypothesized that patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) would have lower symptom burdens, as measured by patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys, than patients treated with intensity modulated photon therapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS:Patients were treated for oropharyngeal cancer from 2006 to 2015 through prospective registries with concurrent chemotherapy and IMPT or chemotherapy and IMRT and completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for Head and Neck Cancer (MDASI-HN) module at various times before treatment (baseline), during treatment (acute phase), within the first 3 months after treatment (subacute phase), and afterward (chronic phase). Individual symptoms and the top 5 and top 11 most severe symptoms were summarized and compared between the radiation therapy modalities. RESULTS:PRO data were collected and analyzed from 35 patients treated with chemotherapy and IMPT and from 46 treated with chemotherapy and IMRT. The baseline symptom burdens were similar between both groups. The overall top 5 symptoms were food taste problems (mean score 4.91 on a 0-10 scale), dry mouth (4.49), swallowing/chewing difficulties (4.26), lack of appetite (4.08), and fatigue (4.00). Among the top 11 symptoms, changes in taste and appetite during the subacute and chronic phases favored IMPT (all P<.048). No differences in symptom burden were detected between modalities during the acute and chronic phases by top-11 symptom scoring. During the subacute phase, the mean (±standard deviation) top 5 MDASI scores were 5.15 ± 2.66 for IMPT versus 6.58 ± 1.98 for IMRT (P=.013). CONCLUSIONS:According to the MDASI-HN, symptom burden was lower among the IMPT patients than among the IMRT patients during the subacute recovery phase after treatment. A prospective randomized clinical trial is underway to define the value of IMPT for the management of head and neck tumors.
| S-EPMC5409532 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technically demanding prostate cancer treatment that may be less expensive than intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Because SBRT may deliver a greater biologic dose of radiation than IMRT, toxicity could be increased. Studies comparing treatment cost to the Medicare program and toxicity are needed.We performed a retrospective study by using a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries age ? 66 years who received SBRT or IMRT as primary treatment for prostate cancer from 2008 to 2011. Each SBRT patient was matched to two IMRT patients with similar follow-up (6, 12, or 24 months). We calculated the cost of radiation therapy treatment to the Medicare program and toxicity as measured by Medicare claims; we used a random effects model to compare genitourinary (GU), GI, and other toxicity between matched patients.The study sample consisted of 1,335 SBRT patients matched to 2,670 IMRT patients. The mean treatment cost was $13,645 for SBRT versus $21,023 for IMRT. In the 6 months after treatment initiation, 15.6% of SBRT versus 12.6% of IMRT patients experienced GU toxicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.53; P = .009). At 24 months after treatment initiation, 43.9% of SBRT versus 36.3% of IMRT patients had GU toxicity (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.63; P = .001). The increase in GU toxicity was due to claims indicative of urethritis, urinary incontinence, and/or obstruction.Although SBRT was associated with lower treatment costs, there appears to be a greater rate of GU toxicity for patients undergoing SBRT compared with IMRT, and prospective correlation with randomized trials is needed.
| S-EPMC3986382 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundTo better understand how radiation oncologists perceive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer and how these perceptions may influence treatment decisions.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews of radiation oncologists between January-May, 2016. We used a purposeful sampling technique to select participants across a wide range of experience, regions, and practice types. Two trained qualitative researchers used an inductive, iterative approach to code transcripts and identify themes. We then used content analysis and thematic analysis of the coded transcripts to understand radiation oncologists' attitudes and beliefs about IMRT and SBRT.ResultsThematic saturation was achieved after 20 interviews. Participants were affiliated with academic (n = 13; 65%), private (n = 5; 25%), and mixed (n = 2; 10%) practices and had a wide range of clinical experience (median 19 years; range 4-49 years). Analysis of interview transcripts revealed four general themes: 1) most radiation oncologists offered surgery, brachytherapy, IMRT, and active surveillance for low-risk patients; 2) there was no consensus on the comparative effectiveness of IMRT and SBRT; 3) key barriers to adopting SBRT included issues related to insurance, reimbursement, and practice inertia; and 4) despite these barriers, most participants envisioned SBRT use increasing over the next 5-10 years.ConclusionsIn the absence of strong opinions about effectiveness, nonclinical factors influence the choice of radiation treatment. Despite a lack of consensus, most participants agreed SBRT may become a standard of care in the future.
| S-EPMC7449079 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo compare long-term outcomes and late toxicity between patients treated with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and with dose-escalated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as salvage radiation therapy (SRT) after prostatectomy.Methods and materialsA total of 110 patients who had been treated at our institution between 2010 and 2018 with SRT for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy were included. The patients were treated either by 3D-CRT with 64 Gy (59 patients) or by IMRT with 70 Gy (51 patients). The irradiation target was the prostate bed only (106 patients) or the prostate bed and pelvic region (4 patients). Twelve patients (11%) received concurrent androgen deprivation therapy. The differences in clinical outcomes and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups were retrospectively assessed. Toxicities were recorded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression after SRT was defined as an increase in the serum PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL from the PSA nadir after SRT and confirmed by a second PSA measurement that was higher than the first.ResultsThe median follow-up time was 7.8 years for 3D-CRT (range:,0.3-9.2 years) and 3.1 years for IMRT (range, 0.4-7.2 years). There was no significant difference in the 4-year biochemical no-evidence-of-disease (bNED) rate between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups (43.5% vs 52.1%; P = .20). Toxicity analysis showed no significant difference in late GI or GU toxicities of grade 2 or greater between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups. The respective 4-year cumulative rates of toxicity in the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups were as follows: grade ≥2 GI toxicity, 8.8% and 4.4% (P = .42); grade ≥2 GU toxicity, 19.1% and 20.3% (P = .93); and grade ≥2 hematuria, 5.3% and 8.0% (P = .67). In the 3D-CRT group, the 8-year cumulative rates of GI toxicity, GU toxicity, and hematuria of grade 2 or greater were 8.8%, 28.4%, and 12.6%, respectively.ConclusionsDose-escalated IMRT showed no improvements in bNED or late toxicity compared with 3D-CRT. In addition, the results suggest that GU toxicity can occur after a long period (even after 6 years), whereas GI toxicity is seldom newly observed after 4 years.
| S-EPMC8655408 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7557123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePatients with nonmetastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) are primarily treated by radiotherapy with curative intent with or without chemotherapy and often experience substantial treatment-related toxic effects even with modern radiation techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may improve the toxicity profile; however, there is a paucity of data given the limited availability of IMPT in regions with endemic NPC.ObjectiveTo compare toxic effects and oncologic outcomes among patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic NPC when treated with IMPT vs IMRT with or without chemotherapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included 77 patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic NPC who received curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT at a tertiary academic cancer center from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019. Forty-eight patients with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positive tumors were included in a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis for survival outcomes. The end of the follow-up period was March 31, 2021.ExposuresIMPT vs IMRT with or without chemotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were the incidence of acute and chronic treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and oncologic outcomes, including locoregional failure-free survival (LRFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).ResultsWe identified 77 patients (25 [32.5%] women; 52 [67.5%] men; median [interquartile range] age, 48.7 [42.2-60.3] years), among whom 28 (36.4%) were treated with IMPT and 49 (63.6%) were treated with IMRT. Median (interquartile range) follow-up was 30.3 (17.9-41.5) months. On multivariable logistic regression analyses, IMPT was associated with lower likelihood of developing grade 2 or higher acute AEs compared with IMRT (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.60; P = .01). Only 1 case (3.8%) of a chronic grade 3 or higher AE occurred in the IMPT group compared with 8 cases (16.3%) in the IMRT group (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.01-1.21; P = .15). Propensity score matching generated a balanced cohort of 48 patients (24 IMPT vs 24 IMRT) and found similar PFS in the IMPT and IMRT groups (2-year PFS, 95.7% [95% CI, 87.7%-100%] vs 76.7% [95% CI, 60.7%-97.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.07-1.47; P = .14). No locoregional recurrence or death was observed in the IMPT group from the matched cohort. Two-year LRFS was 100% (95% CI, 100%-100%) in the IMPT group and 86.2% (95% CI, 72.8%-100%) in the IMRT group (P = .08). Three-year OS was 100% (95% CI, 100%-100%) in the IMPT group and 94.1% (95% CI, 83.6%-100%) in the IMRT group (P = .42). Smoking history was the only clinical factor significantly associated with both poor LRFS (HR, 63.37; 95% CI, 3.25-1236.13; P = .006) and poor PFS (HR, 6.33; 95% CI, 1.16-34.57; P = .03) on multivariable analyses.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT for nonmetastatic NPC was associated with significantly reduced acute toxicity burden in comparison with IMRT, with rare late complications and excellent oncologic outcomes, including 100% locoregional control at 2 years. Prospective trials are warranted to direct the optimal patient selection for IMPT as the primary radiotherapy modality for nonmetastatic NPC.
| S-EPMC8214161 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePatients with oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC) treated with radiotherapy often experience substantial toxic effects, even with modern techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) has a potential advantage over IMRT due to reduced dose to the surrounding organs at risk; however, data are scarce given the limited availability and use of IMPT.ObjectiveTo compare toxic effects and oncologic outcomes among patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic OPC treated with IMPT vs IMRT with or without chemotherapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic OPC who received curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT at a single-institution tertiary academic cancer center from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, with follow-up through December 31, 2021.ExposuresIMPT or IMRT with or without chemotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were the incidence of acute and chronic (present after ≥6 months) treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and oncologic outcomes, including locoregional recurrence (LRR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Fisher exact tests and χ2 tests were used to evaluate associations between toxic effects and treatment modality (IMPT vs IMRT), and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare LRR, PFS, and OS between the 2 groups.ResultsThe study included 292 patients with OPC (272 [93%] with human papillomavirus [HPV]-p16-positive tumors); 254 (87%) were men, 38 (13%) were women, and the median age was 64 years (IQR, 58-71 years). Fifty-eight patients (20%) were treated with IMPT, and 234 (80%) were treated with IMRT. Median follow-up was 26 months (IQR, 17-36 months). Most patients (283 [97%]) received a dose to the primary tumor of 70 Gy. Fifty-seven of the patients treated with IMPT (98%) and 215 of those treated with IMRT (92%) had HPV-p16-positive disease. There were no significant differences in 3-year OS (97% IMPT vs 91% IMRT; P = .18), PFS (82% IMPT vs 85% IMRT; P = .62), or LRR (5% IMPT vs 4% IMRT; P = .59). The incidence of acute toxic effects was significantly higher for IMRT compared with IMPT for oral pain of grade 2 or greater (42 [72%] IMPT vs 217 [93%] IMRT; P < .001), xerostomia of grade 2 or greater (12 [21%] IMPT vs 68 [29%] IMRT; P < .001), dysgeusia of grade 2 or greater (16 [28%] IMPT vs 134 [57%] IMRT; P < .001), grade 3 dysphagia (4 [7%] IMPT vs 29 [12%] IMRT; P < .001), mucositis of grade 3 or greater (10 [53%] IMPT vs 13 [70%] IMRT; P = .003), nausea of grade 2 or greater (0 [0%] IMPT vs 18 [8%] IMRT; P = .04), and weight loss of grade 2 or greater (22 [37%] IMPT vs 138 [59%] IMRT; P < .001). There were no significant differences in chronic toxic effects of grade 3 or greater, although there was a significant difference for chronic xerostomia of grade 2 or greater (6 IMPT [11%] vs 22 IMRT [10%]; P < .001). Four patients receiving IMRT (2%) vs 0 receiving IMPT had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for longer than 6 months.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT for nonmetastatic OPC was associated with a significantly reduced acute toxicity burden compared with IMRT, with few chronic toxic effects and favorable oncologic outcomes, including locoregional recurrence of only 5% at 2 years. Prospective randomized clinical trials comparing these 2 technologies and of patient-reported outcomes are warranted.
| S-EPMC9652753 | biostudies-literature