Pencil-beam scanning proton therapy for anal cancer: a dosimetric comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy

被引:23
|
作者
Ojerholm, Eric [1 ]
Kirk, Maura L. [1 ]
Thompson, Reid F. [1 ]
Zhai, Huifang [1 ]
Metz, James M. [1 ]
Both, Stefan [1 ]
Ben-Josef, Edgar [1 ]
Plastaras, John P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Dept Radiat Oncol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
关键词
ACUTE HEMATOLOGIC TOXICITY; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; DOSE-VOLUME RELATIONSHIPS; SQUAMOUS-CELL CARCINOMA; SMALL-BOWEL TOXICITY; RADIATION-THERAPY; RECTAL-CANCER; CONCURRENT CHEMOTHERAPY; CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY;
D O I
10.3109/0284186X.2014.1002570
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy cures most patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma at the cost of significant treatment-related toxicities. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) reduces side effects compared to older techniques, but whether proton beam therapy (PBT) offers additional advantages is unclear. Material and methods. Eight patients treated with PBT for anal cancer were chosen for this study. We conducted detailed plan comparisons between pencil-beam scanning PBT via two posterior oblique fields and seven-field IMRT. Cumulative dose-volume histograms were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and plan delivery robustness was assessed via verification computed tomography (CT) scans obtained during treatment. Results. Compared to IMRT, PBT reduced low dose radiation (<= 30 Gy) to the small bowel, total pelvic bone marrow, external genitalia, femoral heads, and bladder (all p < 0.05) without compromising target coverage. For PBT versus IMRT, mean small bowel volume receiving 15 Gy (V-15) was 81 versus 151 cm(3), mean external genitalia V-20 was 14 versus 40%, and mean total pelvic bone marrow V-15 was 66 versus 83% (all p = 0.008). The lumbosacral bone marrow dose was higher with PBT due to beam geometry. PBT was delivered with <= 1.3% interfraction deviation in the dose received by 98% of the clinical target volumes. Conclusion. Pencil-beam scanning PBT is clinically feasible and can be robustly delivered for anal cancer patients. Compared with IMRT, PBT reduces low dose radiation to important organs at risk in this population. While the clinical benefit of these differences remains to be shown, existing data suggest that limiting low dose to the small bowel and pelvic bone marrow may reduce treatment toxicity.
引用
收藏
页码:1209 / 1217
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Optimal minimum MU for intensity-modulated proton therapy with pencil-beam scanning proton beams
    Yi, Byongyong
    Mossahebi, Sina
    Jatczak, Jenna
    Mundis, Michelle
    Houser, Thomas
    Alicia, David
    Han, Dong
    Gonzalez, Rosette
    Olis, Stephen
    Zakhary, Mark
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2024,
  • [2] A comprehensive dosimetric study of Monte Carlo and pencil-beam algorithms on intensity-modulated proton therapy for breast cancer
    Liang, Xiaoying
    Li, Zuofeng
    Zheng, Dandan
    Bradley, Julie A.
    Rutenberg, Michael
    Mendenhall, Nancy
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 20 (01): : 128 - 136
  • [3] Pencil Beam Scanning (PBS) Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) Chemoradiotherapy for Anal Canal Cancer-Single Institution Experience
    Vitek, Pavel
    Kubes, Jiri
    Vondracek, Vladimir
    Andrlik, Michal
    Navratil, Matej
    Zapletal, Radek
    Haas, Alexandra
    Dedeckova, Katerina
    Ondrova, Barbora
    Grebenyuk, Alexander
    Rosina, Jozef
    [J]. CANCERS, 2022, 14 (01)
  • [4] DOSIMETRIC COMPARISON OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL CONFORMAL PROTON RADIOTHERAPY, INTENSITY-MODULATED PROTON THERAPY, AND INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY FOR TREATMENT OF PEDIATRIC CRANIOPHARYNGIOMAS
    Boehling, Nicholas S.
    Grosshans, David R.
    Bluett, Jaques B.
    Palmer, Matthew T.
    Song, Xiaofei
    Amos, Richard A.
    Sahoo, Narayan
    Meyer, Jeffrey J.
    Mahajan, Anita
    Woo, Shiao Y.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2012, 82 (02): : 643 - 652
  • [5] Hematologic Toxicity Comparison of Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in Anal Cancer Patients
    Nelson, B.
    Tadesse, D.
    Wang, K.
    Meier, T.
    Mascia, A. E.
    Kharofa, J. R., Jr.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2021, 111 (03): : E64 - E65
  • [6] Proton pencil-beam scanning radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer: dosimetric parameters and 2-year results
    Kubeš Jiří
    Vondráček Vladimír
    Andrlik Michal
    Navrátil Matěj
    Sláviková Silvia
    Vítek Pavel
    Dědečková Kateřina
    Prausová Jana
    Ondrová Barbora
    Rotnáglová Eliška
    Lukeš Petr
    Patzelt Matěj
    Grebenyuk Alexander
    Rosina Jozef
    [J]. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 2021, 278 : 763 - 769
  • [7] Proton pencil-beam scanning radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer: dosimetric parameters and 2-year results
    Kubes, Jiri
    Vondracek, Vladimir
    Andrlik, Michal
    Navratil, Matej
    Slavikova, Silvia
    Vitek, Pavel
    Dedeckova, Katerina
    Prausova, Jana
    Ondrova, Barbora
    Rotnaglova, Eliska
    Lukes, Petr
    Patzelt, Matej
    Grebenyuk, Alexander
    Rosina, Jozef
    [J]. EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY, 2021, 278 (03) : 763 - 769
  • [8] Dosimetric Comparison of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric Arc Therapy for Rectal Cancer
    Oskeroglu Kaplan, Sedenay
    Akboru, Halil
    Sarali, Yunus
    Altin, Suleyman
    Unsal, Mustafa
    [J]. TURK ONKOLOJI DERGISI-TURKISH JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY, 2019, 34 (02): : 59 - 65
  • [9] Dosimetric Comparison of RapidArc Photon and Pencil-Beam Scanning Proton Plans for Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy
    Parham, M.
    Ahmad, S.
    Jin, H.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (06) : E377 - E377
  • [10] Radiobiological and dosimetric impact of RayStation pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms on intensity-modulated proton therapy breast cancer plans
    Rana, Suresh
    Greco, Kevin
    Samuel, E. James Jebaseelan
    Bennouna, Jaafar
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 20 (08): : 36 - 46