Comparison of Three-Dimensional (3D) Conformal Proton Radiotherapy (RT), 3D Conformal Photon RT, and Intensity-Modulated RT for Retroperitoneal and Intra-Abdominal Sarcomas

Journal Article · Wed Aug 01 04:00:00 EDT 2012 · International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJROBP.2011.10.014· OSTI ID:22149411

Swanson, Erika L. ^[1]; Louis, Debbie; Flampouri, Stella; Li, Zuofeng ^[2]; Morris, Christopher G.; Paryani, Nitesh ^[1]; Slopsema, Roelf ^[2]

---

1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida (United States)
2. University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, Florida (United States)

Purpose: 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. Methods and Materials: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

• OSTI ID: 22149411
• Journal Information: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics Journal Issue: 5 Vol. 83; ISSN IOBPD3; ISSN 0360-3016
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE
BENCHMARKS
COBALT
COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS
DOSIMETRY
INTEGRAL DOSES
KIDNEYS
LIVER
PATIENTS
PHOTONS
PLANNING
PROTON BEAMS
RADIOTHERAPY
SARCOMAS
SKELETON
TOXICITY