Dataset Information

Dosimetric Comparisons between Proton Beam Therapy and Modern Photon Radiation Techniques for Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer According to Tumor Location.

ABSTRACT: Herein, we investigated the dosimetric benefits for proton beam therapy (PBT) over modern photon radiation techniques according to tumor location (central, peripheral, and close to the chest wall) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. A total of 42 patients with stage I NSCLC were treated with PBT with a total dose of 50-70 Gy in four or 10 fractions considering the risk of treatment-related toxicities. Simulation plans for three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), static-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were retrospectively generated using the same treatment volumes as implemented in the PBT plans for these patients. Dosimetric improvements were observed with PBT as compared with all the photon-based radiation techniques with regards to the mean lung dose, lung V5 and V10, mean heart dose, and heart V5 and V10 in all locations. Moreover, lower radiation exposure to the chest wall was observed within PBT for peripherally located and close to the chest wall tumors. All radiotherapy modalities achieved clinically satisfactory treatment plans in the current study. Notably, the usage of PBT resulted in significant dosimetric improvements in the lung and heart over photon-based techniques at all tumor locations, including the periphery, for stage I NSCLC.

SUBMITTER: Bayasgalan U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8699272 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In this study, we assessed the differences in the dose distribution of a 4 MV photon beam among different calculation algorithms: the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm, the analytic anisotropic algorithm (AAA), and the pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithm (ver. 11.0.31), in phantoms and in clinical intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans. Homogeneous and heterogeneous, including middle-, low-, and high-density, phantoms were combined to assess the percentage depth dose and lateral dose profiles among AXB, AAA, and PBC. For the phantom containing the low-density area, AXB was in agreement with measurement within 0.5%, while the greatest differences between the AAA and PBC calculations and measurement were 2.7% and 3.6%, respectively. AXB showed agreement with measurement within 2.5% at the high-density area, while AAA and PBC overestimated the dose by more than 4.5% and 4.0%, respectively. Furthermore, 15 IMRT plans, calculated using AXB, for oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, and laryngeal carcinomas were analyzed. The dose prescription was 70 Gy to 50% of the planning target volume (PTV70). Subsequently, each plan was recalculated using AAA and PBC while maintaining the AXB-calculated monitor units, leaf motion, and beam arrangement. Additionally, nine hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancer patients were analyzed in terms of PTV70 for cartilaginous structures (PTV(70_cartilage)). The doses covering 50% to PTV70 calculated by AAA and PBC were 2.1% ± 1.0% and 3.7% ± 0.8% significantly higher than those using AXB, respectively (p < 0.01). The increases in doses to PTV(70_cartilage) calculated by AAA and PBC relative to AXB were 3.9% and 5.3% on average, respectively, and were relatively greater than those in the entire PTV70. AXB was found to be in better agreement with measurement in phantoms in heterogeneous areas for the 4 MV photon beam. Considering AXB as the standard, AAA and PBC overestimated the IMRT dose for head and neck cancer. The dosimetric differences should not be ignored, particularly with cartilaginous structures in PTV.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the dosimetric differences in stereotactic radiosurgery between use of passively scattered protons (PSRS) versus photons (XSRS) for pituitary adenomas.Methods and materialsNine patients with pituitary adenomas were selected among patients receiving single-fraction proton stereotactic radiosurgery (PSRS) between 2016 and 2017. These cases were replanned with XSRS using volumetric-modulated arc therapy with 2.5 mm and 5 mm multileaf collimators (2.5XSRS and 5XSRS, respectively). PSRS was planned with a dedicated single scattering stereotactic proton unit delivered via 3 equally or unequally weighted isocentric fields. XSRS plans were created with optimization to spare organs at risk. Plans were generated using the original total treatment dose delivered in 1 fraction.ResultsPlans were evaluated for target volume dosimetry and estimated clinical toxicity. There was no significant difference in clinical target volume V100%, V95%, V90% or homogeneity index between treatment modalities. PSRS offered lower maximum dose (Dmax) to organs at risk and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) compared with 5XSRS and 2.5XSRS, respectively, for critical structures including optic nerve (right, Dmax 4.18, 5.32, 5.41; EUD 3.35, 4.08, 4.20) and hypothalamus (Dmax 1.71, 3.94, 3.77; EUD 0.94, 2.47, 2.39; P < .05 for PSRS vs 5XSRS and 2.5XSRS). The projected risk of secondary tumors in excess of baseline was lowest for PSRS plans (PSRS 5.28, 5XSRS 12.93, 2.5XSRS 12.66 cases per 10,000 patient-years; P = .008 for PSRS vs 5XSRS, PSRS vs 2.5XSRS, and P = .77 for 5XSRS vs 2.5XSRS).ConclusionsWe demonstrate that neither modality has empirically superior dosimetry and identify potential clinical advantages as well as limitations of each technique. PSRS, 5XSRS and 2.5XSRS demonstrate comparable target volume dosimetry for pituitary adenoma. PSRS compared with XSRS modalities offers modestly decreased maximum dose and EUD to critical proximal structures and decreases risk of radiation-induced secondary tumors by more than half.

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

Dosimetric Comparisons between Proton Beam Therapy and Modern Photon Radiation Techniques for Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer According to Tumor Location.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets