Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, adaptive radiotherapy, proton radiotherapy, and adaptive proton radiotherapy for treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer.

Various radiotherapy planning methods for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) have been proposed to decrease normal tissue toxicity. We compare IMRT, adaptive IMRT, proton therapy (IMPT), and adaptive IMPT for SCCHN. Initial and re-simulation CT images from 10 consecutive patients with SCCHN were used to quantify dosimetric differences between photon and proton therapy. Contouring was performed on both CTs, and plans (n=40 plans) and dose-volume histograms were generated. The mean GTV volume decreased 53.4% with re-simulation. All plans provided comparable PTV coverage. Compared with IMRT, adaptive IMRT significantly reduced the maximum dose to the mandible (p=0.020) and mean doses to the contralateral parotid gland (p=0.049) and larynx (p=0.049). Compared with IMRT and adaptive IMRT, IMPT significantly lowered the maximum doses to the spinal cord (p<0.002 for both) and brainstem (p<0.002 for both) and mean doses to the larynx (p<0.002 for both) and ipsilateral (p=0.004 IMRT, p=0.050 adaptive) and contralateral (p<0.002 IMRT, p=0.010 adaptive) parotid glands. Adaptive IMPT significantly reduced doses to all critical structures compared with IMRT and adaptive IMRT and several critical structures compared with non-adaptive IMPT. Although adaptive IMRT reduced dose to several normal structures compared with standard IMRT, non-adaptive proton therapy had a more favorable dosimetric profile than IMRT or adaptive IMRT and may obviate the need for adaptive planning. Protons allowed significant sparing of the spinal cord, parotid glands, larynx, and brainstem and should be considered for SCCHN to decrease normal tissue toxicity while still providing optimal tumor coverage.

Simone CB 2nd ，Ly D ，Dan TD ，Ondos J ，Ning H ，Belard A ，O'Connell J ，Miller RW ，Simone NL ... -  《-》

Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of head and neck cancer: A dosimetric comparison.

It is the goal of this study to compare the dosimetric advantages of IMPT when compared to IMRT. From January 2019 to August 2020, 25 patients were treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) at our institution for either recurrent, metastatic, benign, or primary tumors in the head and neck region. Twenty-one patients met criteria for dosimetric analysis. Histology of disease included squamous cell carcinoma, acinic cell carcinoma, sarcomatoid sinonasal carcinoma, paraganglioma, adenoid cystic carcinoma, salivary high grade carcinoma, and papillary thyroid carcinoma. For IMRT planning, gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) were contoured with the expansion of 3-5 mm to create the planning target volume (PTV) and dose was prescribed to the PTV. For the IMPT planning, dose was prescribed to CTV and robust optimization was utilized which accounted for a 5 mm setup and range uncertainty. The minimum, mean and maximum target doses for IMRT and IMPT plans as well as mean and maximum normal tissue doses are reported for the 21 patients meeting criteria. Mean doses for IMRT and IMPT were 6278.2 cGy and 6449.8 cGyRBE respectively with p-value of 0.0001. Maximum doses for IMRT and IMPT were 6579.5 cGy and 6772.1 cGyRBE respectively with p-value of 0.0014. Minimum doses for IMRT and IMPT were 5440.6 cGy and 5617.9 cGyRBE respectively with p-value of 0.3576. IMPT had an overall advantage in OAR doses in the brain stem, spinal cord, optic structures, cochlea, larynx, contralateral parotid, and oral cavity with only a few exceptions. Our study thus demonstrates a dosimetric advantage for IMPT in treating head and neck tumors in mean and max dose delivered as well as dose to OARs. Given that our patient cohort were mainly unilateral head and neck cases, our study supports the treatment of this specific subset of patients regardless of histology with IMPT. This may aid in appropriate patient selection for IMPT treatment. Further studies will need to determine if this dosimetric advantage translates to a therapeutic advantage for patients.

Nguyen ML ，Cantrell JN ，Ahmad S ，Henson C ... -  《-》

Spot-scanning beam proton therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy for ipsilateral head and neck malignancies: a treatment planning comparison.

Radiation therapy for head and neck malignancies can have side effects that impede quality of life. Theoretically, proton therapy can reduce treatment-related morbidity by minimizing the dose to critical normal tissues. We evaluated the feasibility of spot-scanning proton therapy for head and neck malignancies and compared dosimetry between those plans and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans. Plans from 5 patients who had undergone IMRT for primary tumors of the head and neck were used for planning proton therapy. Both sets of plans were prepared using computed tomography (CT) scans with the goals of achieving 100% of the prescribed dose to the clinical target volume (CTV) and 95% to the planning TV (PTV) while maximizing conformity to the PTV. Dose-volume histograms were generated and compared, as were conformity indexes (CIs) to the PTVs and mean doses to the organs at risk (OARs). Both modalities in all cases achieved 100% of the dose to the CTV and 95% to the PTV. Mean PTV CIs were comparable (0.371 IMRT, 0.374 protons, p = 0.953). Mean doses were significantly lower in the proton plans to the contralateral submandibular (638.7 cGy IMRT, 4.3 cGy protons, p = 0.002) and parotid (533.3 cGy IMRT, 48.5 cGy protons, p = 0.003) glands; oral cavity (1760.4 cGy IMRT, 458.9 cGy protons, p = 0.003); spinal cord (2112.4 cGy IMRT, 249.2 cGy protons, p = 0.002); and brainstem (1553.52 cGy IMRT, 166.2 cGy protons, p = 0.005). Proton plans also produced lower maximum doses to the spinal cord (3692.1 cGy IMRT, 2014.8 cGy protons, p = 0.034) and brainstem (3412.1 cGy IMRT, 1387.6 cGy protons, p = 0.005). Normal tissue V10, V30, and V50 values were also significantly lower in the proton plans. We conclude that spot-scanning proton therapy can significantly reduce the integral dose to head and neck critical structures. Prospective studies are underway to determine if this reduced dose translates to improved quality of life.

Kandula S ，Zhu X ，Garden AS ，Gillin M ，Rosenthal DI ，Ang KK ，Mohan R ，Amin MV ，Garcia JA ，Wu R ，Sahoo N ，Frank SJ ... -  《-》

The potential of intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy to reduce swallowing dysfunction in the treatment of head and neck cancer: A planning comparative study.

van der Laan HP ，van de Water TA ，van Herpt HE ，Christianen ME ，Bijl HP ，Korevaar EW ，Rasch CR ，van 't Veld AA ，van der Schaaf A ，Schilstra C ，Langendijk JA ，Rococo cooperative group ... -  《-》

Dosimetric comparison of intensity modulated radiotherapy and intensity modulated proton therapy in the treatment of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

To compare the dosimetric performance of Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) in terms of target volume coverage and sparing of neurological organs-at-risk (OARs) in salvaging recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (rNPC). The maximum dose to the internal carotid artery (ICA) and nasopharyngeal (NP) mucosa, which are associated with potential carotid blowout and massive epistaxis, were also evaluated. IMRT and IMPT treatment plans were created for twenty patients with locally advanced rNPC. Planning Target Volume (PTV) was used to account for the setup and spatial error/uncertainty in the IMRT planning. Robust optimization on Clinical Target Volume (CTV) coverage with consideration of range and setup uncertainty was employed to produce two IMPT plans with 3-field and 4-field arrangements. The planning objective was to deliver 60 Gy to the PTV (IMRT) and CTV (IMPT) without exceeding the maximum lifetime cumulative Biologically Effective Dose (BED) of the neurological OARs (applied to the Planning organs-at-risk volume). The target dose coverage as well as the maximum dose to the neurological OARs, ICA, and NP mucosa were compared. Compared with IMRT, 3-field IMPT achieved better coverage to GTV V100% (83.3% vs. 73.2%, P <0.01) and CTV V100% (80.5% vs. 72.4%, P <0.01), and lower maximum dose to the critical OARs including the spinal cord (19.2 Gy vs. 22.3 Gy, P <0.01), brainstem (30.0 Gy vs. 32.3 Gy, P <0.01) and optic chiasm (6.6 Gy vs. 9.8 Gy, P <0.01). The additional beam with the 4-fields IMPT plans further improved the target coverage from the 3-field IMPT (CTV V98%: 85.3% vs. 82.4%, P <0.01) with similar OAR sparing. However, the target dose was highly non-uniform with both IMPT plans, leading to a significantly higher maximum dose to the ICA (∼68 Gy vs. 62.6 Gy, P <0.01) and NP mucosa (∼72 Gy vs. 62.8 Gy, P <0.01) than IMRT. IMPT demonstrated some dosimetric advantage over IMRT in treating rNPC. However, IMPT could also result in very high dose hot spots in the target volume. Careful consideration of the ICA and NP mucosal complications is recommended when applying IMPT on rNPC patients.

Hung HM ，Chan OCM ，Mak CH ，Hung WM ，Ng WT ，Lee MCH ... -  《-》