skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: A dosimetric comparison of proton and photon therapy in unresectable cancers of the head of pancreas

Abstract

Purpose: Uncontrolled local growth is the cause of death in ∼30% of patients with unresectable pancreatic cancers. The addition of standard-dose radiotherapy to gemcitabine has been shown to confer a modest survival benefit in this population. Radiation dose escalation with three-dimensional planning is not feasible, but high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been shown to improve local control. Still, dose-escalation remains limited by gastrointestinal toxicity. In this study, the authors investigate the potential use of double scattering (DS) and pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy in limiting dose to critical organs at risk. Methods: The authors compared DS, PBS, and IMRT plans in 13 patients with unresectable cancer of the pancreatic head, paying particular attention to duodenum, small intestine, stomach, liver, kidney, and cord constraints in addition to target volume coverage. All plans were calculated to 5500 cGy in 25 fractions with equivalent constraints and normalized to prescription dose. All statistics were by two-tailed paired t-test. Results: Both DS and PBS decreased stomach, duodenum, and small bowel dose in low-dose regions compared to IMRT (p < 0.01). However, protons yielded increased doses in the mid to high dose regions (e.g., 23.6–53.8 and 34.9–52.4 Gy for duodenum using DS and PBS,more » respectively; p < 0.05). Protons also increased generalized equivalent uniform dose to duodenum and stomach, however these differences were small (<5% and 10%, respectively; p < 0.01). Doses to other organs-at-risk were within institutional constraints and placed no obvious limitations on treatment planning. Conclusions: Proton therapy does not appear to reduce OAR volumes receiving high dose. Protons are able to reduce the treated volume receiving low-intermediate doses, however the clinical significance of this remains to be determined in future investigations.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ;  [1];  [2];  [3]
  1. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 (United States)
  2. Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (United States)
  3. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98109 (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22409887
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 41; Journal Issue: 8; Other Information: (c) 2014 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; CRITICAL ORGANS; KIDNEYS; LIVER; NEOPLASMS; PANCREAS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SCATTERING; SMALL INTESTINE; STOMACH; THREE-DIMENSIONAL CALCULATIONS; TOXICITY

Citation Formats

Thompson, Reid F., Zhai, Huifang, Both, Stefan, Metz, James M., Plastaras, John P., Ben-Josef, Edgar, E-mail: Edgar.Ben-Josef@uphs.upenn.edu, Mayekar, Sonal U., and Apisarnthanarax, Smith. A dosimetric comparison of proton and photon therapy in unresectable cancers of the head of pancreas. United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4887797.
Thompson, Reid F., Zhai, Huifang, Both, Stefan, Metz, James M., Plastaras, John P., Ben-Josef, Edgar, E-mail: Edgar.Ben-Josef@uphs.upenn.edu, Mayekar, Sonal U., & Apisarnthanarax, Smith. A dosimetric comparison of proton and photon therapy in unresectable cancers of the head of pancreas. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4887797.
Thompson, Reid F., Zhai, Huifang, Both, Stefan, Metz, James M., Plastaras, John P., Ben-Josef, Edgar, E-mail: Edgar.Ben-Josef@uphs.upenn.edu, Mayekar, Sonal U., and Apisarnthanarax, Smith. Fri . "A dosimetric comparison of proton and photon therapy in unresectable cancers of the head of pancreas". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4887797.
@article{osti_22409887,
title = {A dosimetric comparison of proton and photon therapy in unresectable cancers of the head of pancreas},
author = {Thompson, Reid F. and Zhai, Huifang and Both, Stefan and Metz, James M. and Plastaras, John P. and Ben-Josef, Edgar, E-mail: Edgar.Ben-Josef@uphs.upenn.edu and Mayekar, Sonal U. and Apisarnthanarax, Smith},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Uncontrolled local growth is the cause of death in ∼30% of patients with unresectable pancreatic cancers. The addition of standard-dose radiotherapy to gemcitabine has been shown to confer a modest survival benefit in this population. Radiation dose escalation with three-dimensional planning is not feasible, but high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been shown to improve local control. Still, dose-escalation remains limited by gastrointestinal toxicity. In this study, the authors investigate the potential use of double scattering (DS) and pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy in limiting dose to critical organs at risk. Methods: The authors compared DS, PBS, and IMRT plans in 13 patients with unresectable cancer of the pancreatic head, paying particular attention to duodenum, small intestine, stomach, liver, kidney, and cord constraints in addition to target volume coverage. All plans were calculated to 5500 cGy in 25 fractions with equivalent constraints and normalized to prescription dose. All statistics were by two-tailed paired t-test. Results: Both DS and PBS decreased stomach, duodenum, and small bowel dose in low-dose regions compared to IMRT (p < 0.01). However, protons yielded increased doses in the mid to high dose regions (e.g., 23.6–53.8 and 34.9–52.4 Gy for duodenum using DS and PBS, respectively; p < 0.05). Protons also increased generalized equivalent uniform dose to duodenum and stomach, however these differences were small (<5% and 10%, respectively; p < 0.01). Doses to other organs-at-risk were within institutional constraints and placed no obvious limitations on treatment planning. Conclusions: Proton therapy does not appear to reduce OAR volumes receiving high dose. Protons are able to reduce the treated volume receiving low-intermediate doses, however the clinical significance of this remains to be determined in future investigations.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4887797},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 8,
volume = 41,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Aug 15 00:00:00 EDT 2014},
month = {Fri Aug 15 00:00:00 EDT 2014}
}
  • Purpose: Proton radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer (HNC) aims to improve organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing over photon radiotherapy. However, it may be less robust for setup and range uncertainties. The authors investigated OAR sparing and plan robustness for spot-scanning proton planning techniques and compared these with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) photon plans. Methods: Ten HNC patients were replanned using two arc VMAT (RapidArc) and spot-scanning proton techniques. OARs to be spared included the contra- and ipsilateral parotid and submandibular glands and individual swallowing muscles. Proton plans were made using Multifield Optimization (MFO, using three, five, and seven fields) and Single-field Optimizationmore » (SFO, using three fields). OAR sparing was evaluated using mean dose to composite salivary glands (Comp{sub Sal}) and composite swallowing muscles (Comp{sub Swal}). Plan robustness was determined for setup and range uncertainties (±3 mm for setup, ±3% HU) evaluating V95% and V107% for clinical target volumes. Results: Averaged over all patients Comp{sub Sal}/Comp{sub Swal} mean doses were lower for the three-field MFO plans (14.6/16.4 Gy) compared to the three-field SFO plans (20.0/23.7 Gy) and VMAT plans (23.0/25.3 Gy). Using more than three fields resulted in differences in OAR sparing of less than 1.5 Gy between plans. SFO plans were significantly more robust than MFO plans. VMAT plans were the most robust. Conclusions: MFO plans had improved OAR sparing but were less robust than SFO and VMAT plans, while SFO plans were more robust than MFO plans but resulted in less OAR sparing. Robustness of the MFO plans did not increase with more fields.« less
  • Purpose: To assess the potential reduction in breast dose for young girls with Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) treated with breast-sparing proton therapy (BS-PT) as compared with three-dimensional conformal involved-field photon radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Methods and Materials: The Clarian Health Cancer Registry was queried for female pediatric patients with the diagnosis of HL who received radiotherapy at the Indiana University Simon Cancer Center during 2006-2009. The original CT simulation images were obtained, and 3D-CRT and BS-PT plans delivering 21 Gy or cobalt gray equivalent (CGE) in 14 fractions were created for each patient. Dose-volume histogram data were collected for both 3D-CRT and BS-PTmore » plans and compared by paired t test for correlated samples. Results: The cancer registry provided 10 female patients with Ann Arbor Stage II HL, aged 10-18 years at the time of treatment. Both mean and maximum breast dose were significantly less with BS-PT compared with 3D-CRT: 0.95 CGE vs. 4.70 Gy (p < 0.001) and 21.07 CGE vs. 23.11 Gy (p < 0.001), respectively. The volume of breast receiving 1.0 Gy/CGE and 5.0 Gy/CGE was also significantly less with BS-PT, 194 cm{sup 3} and 93 cm{sup 3}, respectively, compared with 790 cm{sup 3} and 360 cm{sup 3} with 3D-CRT (p = 0.009, 0.013). Conclusion: Breast-sparing proton therapy has the potential to reduce unnecessary breast dose in young girls with HL by as much as 80% relative to involved-field 3D-CRT.« less
  • During radiotherapy treatments, quality assurance/control is essential, particularly dose delivery to patients. This study was designed to verify midline doses with diode in vivo dosimetry. Dosimetry was studied for 6-MV bilateral fields in head and neck cancer treatments and 10-MV bilateral and anteroposterior/posteroanterior (AP/PA) fields in pelvic cancer treatments. Calibrations with corrections of diodes were performed using plastic water phantoms; 190 and 100 portals were studied for head and neck and pelvis treatments, respectively. Calculations of midline doses were made using the midline transmission, arithmetic mean, and geometric mean algorithms. These midline doses were compared with the treatment planning systemmore » target doses for lateral or AP (PA) portals and paired opposed portals. For head and neck treatments, all 3 algorithms were satisfactory, although the geometric mean algorithm was less accurate and more uncertain. For pelvis treatments, the arithmetic mean algorithm seemed unacceptable, whereas the other algorithms were satisfactory. The random error was reduced by using averaged midline doses of paired opposed portals because the asymmetric effect was averaged out. Considering the simplicity of in vivo dosimetry, the arithmetic mean and geometric mean algorithm should be adopted for head/neck and pelvis treatments, respectively.« less
  • Background: Oropharynx cancers treated with intensity-modulated radiation (IMRT) are often treated with a monoisocentric or half-beam technique (HB). IMRT is delivered to the primary tumor and upper neck alone, while the lower neck is treated with a matching anterior beam. Because IMRT can treat the entire volume or whole field (WF), the primary aim of the study was to test the ability to plan cases using WF-IMRT while obtaining an optimal plan and acceptable dose distribution and also respecting normal critical structures. Methods and Materials: Thirteen patients with early-stage oropharynx cancers had treatment plans created with HB-IMRT and WF-IMRT techniques.more » Plans were deemed acceptable if they met the planning guidelines (as defined or with minor violations) of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol H0022. Comparisons included coverage to the planning target volume (PTV) of the primary (PTV66) and subclinical disease (PTV54). We also compared the ability of both techniques to respect the tolerance of critical structures. Results: The volume of PTV66 treated to >110% was less in 9 of the 13 patients in the WF-IMRT plan as compared to the HB-IMRT plan. The calculated mean volume receiving >110% for all patients planned with WF-IMRT was 9.3% (0.8%-25%) compared to 13.7% (2.7%-23.7%) with HB-IMRT (p = 0.09). The PTV54 volume receiving >110% of dose was less in 10 of the 13 patients planned with WF-IMRT compared to HB-IMRT. The mean doses to all critical structures except the larynx were comparable with each plan. The mean dose to the larynx was significantly less (p = 0.001), 18.7 Gy, with HB-IMRT compared to 47 Gy with WF-IMRT. Conclusions: Regarding target volumes, acceptable plans can be generated with either WF-IMRT or HB-IMRT. WF-IMRT has an advantage if uncertainty at the match line is a concern, whereas HB-IMRT, particularly in cases not involving the base of tongue, can achieve much lower doses to the larynx.« less
  • Purpose: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is highly sensitive to uncertainties in beam range and patient setup. Conventionally, these uncertainties are dealt using geometrically expanded planning target volume (PTV). In this paper, the authors evaluated a robust optimization method that deals with the uncertainties directly during the spot weight optimization to ensure clinical target volume (CTV) coverage without using PTV. The authors compared the two methods for a population of head and neck (H and N) cancer patients. Methods: Two sets of IMPT plans were generated for 14 H and N cases, one being PTV-based conventionally optimized and the other CTV-basedmore » robustly optimized. For the PTV-based conventionally optimized plans, the uncertainties are accounted for by expanding CTV to PTV via margins and delivering the prescribed dose to PTV. For the CTV-based robustly optimized plans, spot weight optimization was guided to reduce the discrepancy in doses under extreme setup and range uncertainties directly, while delivering the prescribed dose to CTV rather than PTV. For each of these plans, the authors calculated dose distributions under various uncertainty settings. The root-mean-square dose (RMSD) for each voxel was computed and the area under the RMSD-volume histogram curves (AUC) was used to relatively compare plan robustness. Data derived from the dose volume histogram in the worst-case and nominal doses were used to evaluate the plan optimality. Then the plan evaluation metrics were averaged over the 14 cases and were compared with two-sided paired t tests. Results: CTV-based robust optimization led to more robust (i.e., smaller AUCs) plans for both targets and organs. Under the worst-case scenario and the nominal scenario, CTV-based robustly optimized plans showed better target coverage (i.e., greater D{sub 95%}), improved dose homogeneity (i.e., smaller D{sub 5%}- D{sub 95%}), and lower or equivalent dose to organs at risk. Conclusions: CTV-based robust optimization provided significantly more robust dose distributions to targets and organs than PTV-based conventional optimization in H and N using IMPT. Eliminating the use of PTV and planning directly based on CTV provided better or equivalent normal tissue sparing.« less