Dataset Information

Scanning Beam Proton Therapy versus Photon IMRT for Stage III Lung Cancer: Comparison of Dosimetry, Toxicity, and Outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

There are limited clinical data on scanning-beam proton therapy (SPT) in treating locally advanced lung cancer, as most published studies have used passive-scatter technology. There is increasing interest in whether the dosimetric advantages of SPT compared with photon therapy can translate into superior clinical outcomes. We present our experience of SPT and photon intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with clinical dosimetry and outcomes in patients with stage III lung cancer.

Methods and materials

Patients with stage III lung cancer treated at our center between 2013 and May 2018 were identified in compliance with our institutional review board (64 patients = 34 SPT + 30 IMRT). Most proton patients were treated with pencil beam scanning (28 of 34), and 6 of 34 were treated with uniform scanning. Fisher exact test, ?² test, and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare groups. All tests were 2-sided.

Results

Patient characteristics were similar between the IMRT and SPT patients, except for worse lung function in the IMRT group. Mean dose to lung, heart, and esophagus was lower in the SPT group, with most benefit in the low-dose region (lungs, 9.7 Gy vs 15.7 Gy for SPT vs IMRT, respectively [P = .004]; heart, 7 Gy vs 14 Gy [P = .001]; esophagus, 28.2 Gy vs 30.9 Gy [P = .023]). Esophagitis and dermatitis grades were not different between the 2 groups. Grade 2+ pneumonitis was 21% in the SPT group and 40% in the IMRT group (P = .107). Changes in blood counts were not different between the 2 groups. Overall survival and progression-free survival were not different between SPT and IMRT (median overall survival, 41.6 vs 30.7 months, respectively [P = .52]; median progression-free survival, 19.5 vs 14.6 months [P = .50]).

Conclusions

We report our experience with SPT and IMRT in stage III lung cancer. Our cohort of patients treated with SPT had lower doses to normal organs (lungs, heart, esophagus) than our IMRT cohort. There was no statistically significant difference in toxicity rates or survival, although there may have been a trend toward lower rates of pneumonitis.

SUBMITTER: Zou Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7276696 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Scanning Beam Proton Therapy versus Photon IMRT for Stage III Lung Cancer: Comparison of Dosimetry, Toxicity, and Outcomes.

Zou Zhenwei Z Bowen Stephen R SR Thomas Hannah M T HMT Sasidharan Balu Krishna BK Rengan Ramesh R Zeng Jing J

Advances in radiation oncology 20200320 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>There are limited clinical data on scanning-beam proton therapy (SPT) in treating locally advanced lung cancer, as most published studies have used passive-scatter technology. There is increasing interest in whether the dosimetric advantages of SPT compared with photon therapy can translate into superior clinical outcomes. We present our experience of SPT and photon intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with clinical dosimetry and outcomes in patients with stage III lung c ...[more]

PMID: 32529138

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

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:Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is emerging as a leading technology in treating early-stage, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). However, two other modalities capable of deliver-ing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) include fixed-beam and helical TomoTherapy (HT). This study aims to provide an extensive dosimetric compari-son among these various IMRT techniques for treating early-stage NSCLC with SABR. Ten early-stage NSCLC patients were retrospectively optimized using three fixed-beam techniques via nine to eleven beams (high and low modulation step-and-shoot (SS), and sliding window (SW)), two VMAT techniques via two partial arcs (SmartArc (SA) and RapidArc (RA)), and three HT techniques via three different fan beam widths (1 cm, 2.5 cm, and 5 cm) for 80 plans total. Fixed-beam and VMAT plans were generated using flattening filter-free beams. SS and SA, HT treatment plans, and SW and RA were optimized using Pinnacle v9.1, Tomoplan v.3.1.1, and Eclipse (Acuros XB v11.3 algorithm), respectively. Dose-volume histogram statistics, dose conformality, and treatment delivery efficiency were analyzed. VMAT treatment plans achieved significantly lower values for contralat-eral lung V5Gy (p ? 0.05) compared to the HT plans, and significantly lower mean lung dose (p < 0.006) compared to HT 5 cm treatment plans. In the comparison between the VMAT techniques, a significant reduction in the total monitor units (p = 0.05) was found in the SA plans, while a significant decrease was observed in the dose falloff parameter, D2cm, (p = 0.05), for the RA treatments. The maximum cord dose was significantly reduced (p = 0.017) in grouped RA&SA plans com-pared to SS. Estimated treatment time was significantly higher for HT and fixed-beam plans compared to RA&SA (p < 0.001). Although, a significant difference was not observed in the RA vs. SA (p = 0.393). RA&SA outperformed HT in all parameters measured. Despite an increase in dose to the heart and bronchus, this study demonstrates that VMAT is dosimetrically advantageous in treating early-stage NSCLC with SABR compared to fixed-beam, while providing significantly shorter treatment times.

Project description:PurposeTo report quality of life (QOL)/toxicity in men treated with proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer and to compare outcomes between passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) and spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT).Methods and materialsMen with localized prostate cancer enrolled on a prospective QOL protocol with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up were reviewed. Comparative groups were defined by technique (PSPT vs SSPT). Patients completed Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires at baseline and every 3-6 months after proton beam therapy. Clinically meaningful differences in QOL were defined as ≥0.5 × baseline standard deviation. The cumulative incidence of modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade ≥2 gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity and argon plasma coagulation were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsA total of 226 men received PSPT, and 65 received SSPT. Both PSPT and SSPT resulted in statistically significant changes in sexual, urinary, and bowel Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite summary scores. Only bowel summary, function, and bother resulted in clinically meaningful decrements beyond treatment completion. The decrement in bowel QOL persisted through 24-month follow-up. Cumulative grade ≥2 GU and GI toxicity at 24 months were 13.4% and 9.6%, respectively. There was 1 grade 3 GI toxicity (PSPT group) and no other grade ≥3 GI or GU toxicity. Argon plasma coagulation application was infrequent (PSPT 4.4% vs SSPT 1.5%; P=.21). No statistically significant differences were appreciated between PSPT and SSPT regarding toxicity or QOL.ConclusionBoth PSPT and SSPT confer low rates of grade ≥2 GI or GU toxicity, with preservation of meaningful sexual and urinary QOL at 24 months. A modest, yet clinically meaningful, decrement in bowel QOL was seen throughout follow-up. No toxicity or QOL differences between PSPT and SSPT were identified. Long-term comparative results in a larger patient cohort are warranted.

Dataset Information

Scanning Beam Proton Therapy versus Photon IMRT for Stage III Lung Cancer: Comparison of Dosimetry, Toxicity, and Outcomes.

Purpose

Methods and materials

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Scanning Beam Proton Therapy versus Photon IMRT for Stage III Lung Cancer: Comparison of Dosimetry, Toxicity, and Outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets