Protons offer reduced normal-tissue exposure for patients receiving postoperative radiotherapy for resected pancreatic head cancer.

To determine the potential role for adjuvant proton-based radiotherapy (PT) for resected pancreatic head cancer. Between June 2008 and November 2008, 8 consecutive patients with resected pancreatic head cancers underwent optimized intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning. IMRT plans used between 10 and 18 fields and delivered 45 Gy to the initial planning target volume (PTV) and a 5.4 Gy boost to a reduced PTV. PTVs were defined according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9704 radiotherapy guidelines. Ninety-five percent of PTVs received 100% of the target dose and 100% of the PTVs received 95% of the target dose. Normal tissue constraints were as follows: right kidney V18 Gy to <70%; left kidney V18 Gy to <30%; small bowel/stomach V20 Gy to <50%, V45 Gy to <15%, V50 Gy to <10%, and V54 Gy to <5%; liver V30 Gy to <60%; and spinal cord maximum to 46 Gy. Optimized two- to three-field three-dimensional conformal proton plans were retrospectively generated on the same patients. The team generating the proton plans was blinded to the dose distributions achieved by the IMRT plans. The IMRT and proton plans were then compared. A Wilcoxon paired t-test was performed to compare various dosimetric points between the two plans for each patient. All proton plans met all normal tissue constraints and were isoeffective with the corresponding IMRT plans in terms of PTV coverage. The proton plans offered significantly reduced normal-tissue exposure over the IMRT plans with respect to the following: median small bowel V20 Gy, 15.4% with protons versus 47.0% with IMRT (p = 0.0156); median gastric V20 Gy, 2.3% with protons versus 20.0% with IMRT (p = 0.0313); and median right kidney V18 Gy, 27.3% with protons versus 50.5% with IMRT (p = 0.0156). By reducing small bowel and stomach exposure, protons have the potential to reduce the acute and late toxicities of postoperative chemoradiation in this setting.

Nichols RC Jr ，Huh SN ，Prado KL ，Yi BY ，Sharma NK ，Ho MW ，Hoppe BS ，Mendenhall NP ，Li Z ，Regine WF ... -  《-》

Comparison of three-dimensional (3D) conformal proton radiotherapy (RT), 3D conformal photon RT, and intensity-modulated RT for retroperitoneal and intra-abdominal sarcomas.

To compare three-dimensional conformal proton radiotherapy (3DCPT), intensity-modulated photon radiotherapy (IMRT), and 3D conformal photon radiotherapy (3DCRT) to predict the optimal RT technique for retroperitoneal sarcomas. 3DCRT, IMRT, and 3DCPT plans were created for treating eight patients with retroperitoneal or intra-abdominal sarcomas. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the gross tumor plus a 2-cm margin, limited by bone and intact fascial planes. For photon plans, the planning target volume (PTV) included a uniform expansion of 5 mm. For the proton plans, the PTV was nonuniform and beam-specific. The prescription dose was 50.4 Gy/Cobalt gray equivalent CGE. Plans were normalized so that >95% of the CTV received 100% of the dose. The CTV was covered adequately by all techniques. The median conformity index was 0.69 for 3DCPT, 0.75 for IMRT, and 0.51 for 3DCRT. The median inhomogeneity coefficient was 0.062 for 3DCPT, 0.066 for IMRT, and 0.073 for 3DCRT. The bowel median volume receiving 15 Gy (V15) was 16.4% for 3DCPT, 52.2% for IMRT, and 66.1% for 3DCRT. The bowel median V45 was 6.3% for 3DCPT, 4.7% for IMRT, and 15.6% for 3DCRT. The median ipsilateral mean kidney dose was 22.5 CGE for 3DCPT, 34.1 Gy for IMRT, and 37.8 Gy for 3DCRT. The median contralateral mean kidney dose was 0 CGE for 3DCPT, 6.4 Gy for IMRT, and 11 Gy for 3DCRT. The median contralateral kidney V5 was 0% for 3DCPT, 49.9% for IMRT, and 99.7% for 3DCRT. Regardless of technique, the median mean liver dose was <30 Gy, and the median cord V50 was 0%. The median integral dose was 126 J for 3DCPT, 400 J for IMRT, and 432 J for 3DCRT. IMRT and 3DCPT result in plans that are more conformal and homogenous than 3DCRT. Based on Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in Clinic benchmarks, the dosimetric advantage of proton therapy may be less gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity.

Swanson EL ，Indelicato DJ ，Louis D ，Flampouri S ，Li Z ，Morris CG ，Paryani N ，Slopsema R ... -  《-》

Dosimetric comparison of combined intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton therapy versus IMRT alone for pelvic and para-aortic radiotherapy in gynecologic malignancies.

To perform a dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT), and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) to the para-aortic (PA) nodal region in women with locally advanced gynecologic malignancies. The CT treatment planning scans of 10 consecutive patients treated with IMRT to the pelvis and PA nodes were identified. The clinical target volume was defined by the primary tumor for patients with cervical cancer and by the vagina and paravaginal tissues for patients with endometrial cancer, in addition to the regional lymph nodes. The IMRT, PSPT, and IMPT plans were generated using the Eclipse Treatment Planning System and were analyzed for various dosimetric endpoints. Two groups of treatment plans including proton radiotherapy were created: IMRT to pelvic nodes with PSPT to PA nodes (PSPT/IMRT), and IMRT to pelvic nodes with IMPT to PA nodes (IMPT/IMRT). The IMRT and proton RT plans were optimized to deliver 50.4 Gy or Gy (relative biologic effectiveness [RBE)), respectively. Dose-volume histograms were analyzed for all of the organs at risk. The paired t test was used for all statistical comparison. The small-bowel V(20), V(30), V(35), andV(40) were reduced in PSPT/IMRT by 11%, 18%, 27%, and 43%, respectively (p < 0.01). Treatment with IMPT/IMRT demonstrated a 32% decrease in the small-bowel V(20). Treatment with PSPT/IMRT showed statistically significant reductions in the body V(5-20); IMPT/IMRT showed reductions in the body V(5-15). The dose received by half of both kidneys was reduced by PSPT/IMRT and by IMPT/IMRT. All plans maintained excellent coverage of the planning target volume. Compared with IMRT alone, PSPT/IMRT and IMPT/IMRT had a statistically significant decrease in dose to the small and large bowel and kidneys, while maintaining excellent planning target volume coverage. Further studies should be done to correlate the clinical significance of these findings.

Milby AB ，Both S ，Ingram M ，Lin LL ... -  《-》

Dosimetric comparison of doses to organs at risk using 3-D conformal radiotherapy versus intensity modulated radiotherapy in postoperative radiotherapy of periampullary cancers: implications for radiation dose escalation.

Bahl A ，Kapoor R ，Tomar P ，Singh OA ，Gupta R ，Sharma SC ... -  《-》

Radiotherapy for early mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma according to the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG): the roles of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and involved-node radiotherapy.

Cure rates of early Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are high, and avoidance of late complications and second malignancies have become increasingly important. This comparative treatment planning study analyzes to what extent target volume reduction to involved-node (IN) and intensity-modulated (IM) radiotherapy (RT), compared with involved-field (IF) and three-dimensional (3D) RT, can reduce doses to organs at risk (OAR). Based on 20 computed tomography (CT) datasets of patients with early unfavorable mediastinal HL, we created treatment plans for 3D-RT and IMRT for both the IF and IN according to the guidelines of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG). As OAR, we defined heart, lung, breasts, and spinal cord. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were evaluated for planning target volumes (PTVs) and OAR. Average IF-PTV and IN-PTV were 1705 cm(3) and 1015 cm(3), respectively. Mean doses to the PTVs were almost identical for all plans. For IF-PTV/IN-PTV, conformity was better with IMRT and homogeneity was better with 3D-RT. Mean doses to the heart (17.94/9.19 Gy for 3D-RT and 13.76/7.42 Gy for IMRT) and spinal cord (23.93/13.78 Gy for 3D-RT and 19.16/11.55 Gy for IMRT) were reduced by IMRT, whereas mean doses to lung (10.62/8.57 Gy for 3D-RT and 12.77/9.64 Gy for IMRT) and breasts (left 4.37/3.42 Gy for 3D-RT and 6.04/4.59 Gy for IMRT, and right 2.30/1.63 Gy for 3D-RT and 5.37/3.53 Gy for IMRT) were increased. Volume exposed to high doses was smaller for IMRT, whereas volume exposed to low doses was smaller for 3D-RT. Pronounced benefits of IMRT were observed for patients with lymph nodes anterior to the heart. IN-RT achieved substantially better values than IF-RT for almost all OAR parameters, i.e., dose reduction of 20% to 50%, regardless of radiation technique. Reduction of target volume to IN most effectively improves OAR sparing, but is still considered investigational. For the time being, IMRT should be considered for large PTVs especially when the anterior mediastinum is involved.

Koeck J ，Abo-Madyan Y ，Lohr F ，Stieler F ，Kriz J ，Mueller RP ，Wenz F ，Eich HT ... -  《-》