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
  • [41] Dosimetric comparison of VMAT and pencil beam scanning proton therapy for abdominal pediatric tumors
    Guerreiro, F.
    Seravalli, E.
    Janssens, G. O.
    Maduro, J. H.
    Brouwer, C. L.
    Korevaar, E. W.
    Knopf, A. C.
    Raaymakers, B. W.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2018, 127 : S885 - S886
  • [42] Whole-ventricular irradiation for intracranial germ cell tumors: Dosimetric comparison of pencil beam scanned protons, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy
    Correia, Dora
    Terribilini, Dario
    Zepter, Stefan
    Pica, Alessia
    Bizzocchi, Nicola
    Volken, Werner
    Stieb, Sonja
    Ahlhelm, Frank
    Herrmann, Evelyn
    Fix, Michael K.
    Manser, Peter
    Aebersold, Daniel M.
    Weber, Damien C.
    [J]. CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2019, 15 : 53 - 61
  • [43] Dosimetric comparison to the heart and cardiac substructure in a large cohort of esophageal cancer patients treated with proton beam therapy or Intensity-modulated radiation therapy
    Shiraishi, Yutaka
    Xu, Cai
    Yang, Jinzhong
    Komaki, Ritsuko
    Lin, Steven H.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2017, 125 (01) : 48 - 54
  • [44] Intensity-modulated proton therapy using dose-painting pencil beam scanning for high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma
    Schaub, Stephanie K.
    Bowen, Stephen R.
    Nyflot, Matthew J.
    Apisarnthanarax, Smith
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 38 (04)
  • [45] Secondary radiation doses of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and proton beam therapy in patients with lung and liver cancer
    Kim, Seonkyu
    Min, Byung Jun
    Yoon, Myonggeun
    Kim, Jinsung
    Shin, Dong Ho
    Lee, Se Byeong
    Park, Sung Yong
    Cho, Sungkoo
    Kim, Dae Hyun
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2011, 98 (03) : 335 - 339
  • [46] DOSIMETRIC COMPARISON OF VOLUMETRIC INTENSITY-MODULATED ARC (RAPIDARC) THERAPY, INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY, AND 3D CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY FOR PRIMARY LIVER TUMOURS
    John, Jacob
    Sivasevan, Roshni
    Sudha, Arun Sankar
    Sivanandan, Choondal Devan
    Abdurahman, Sajeed
    Paramu, Raghukumar
    Sreedevi, Shaiju Vasudevan
    George, Preethi Sara
    Jayaprakash, Puthuveettil Govindan
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2015, 51 : E34 - E34
  • [47] Comparison of intensity-modulated proton therapy and intensity-modulated photon therapy in treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma
    Taheri-Kadkhoda, Z.
    Nill, S.
    Wilkens, J.
    Oelfke, U.
    Bjoerk-Eriksson, T.
    Huber, P.
    Munter, M. W.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2007, 82 : S52 - S53
  • [48] A CASE STUDY IN PROTON PENCIL-BEAM SCANNING DELIVERY
    Kooy, Hanne M.
    Clasie, Benjamin M.
    Lu, Hsiao-Ming
    Madden, Thomas M.
    Bentefour, Hassan
    Depauw, Nicolas
    Adams, Judy A.
    Trofimov, Alexei V.
    Demaret, Denis
    Delaney, Thomas F.
    Flanz, Jacob B.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2010, 76 (02): : 624 - 630
  • [49] Dosimetric predictors of acute hematologic toxicity during concurrent intensity-modulated radiotherapy and chemotherapy for anal cancer
    P. Franco
    R. Ragona
    F. Arcadipane
    M. Mistrangelo
    P. Cassoni
    N. Rondi
    M. Morino
    P. Racca
    U. Ricardi
    [J]. Clinical and Translational Oncology, 2017, 19 : 67 - 75
  • [50] Dosimetric predictors of acute hematologic toxicity during concurrent intensity-modulated radiotherapy and chemotherapy for anal cancer
    Franco, P.
    Ragona, R.
    Arcadipane, F.
    Mistrangelo, M.
    Cassoni, P.
    Rondi, N.
    Morino, M.
    Racca, P.
    Ricardi, U.
    [J]. CLINICAL & TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY, 2017, 19 (01): : 67 - 75