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

Title: SU-F-T-395: Evaluation of Best Dosimetry Achievable with VMAT and IMRT Treatment Techniques Targeting Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: To determine from retrospective study the most appropriate technique for targeting small borderline operable pancreatic cancer surrounding blood vessels by evaluating the dosimetry and normal tissue sparing achievable using Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). Methods: Treatment plans from ten patients who have undergone treatment with a prescribed dose of 4950 cGy, at 275 cGy per fraction, were analyzed. All plans were replanned using Eclipse TPS (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) with complementary VMAT or IMRT techniques to obtain paired data sets for comparison. The coverage to at least 95% of the planned target volume (PTV) was normalized to receive 100% of the prescription dose. The normal tissue constraints followed the quantitative analysis of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC) guidelines and the organs at risks (OARs) were liver, kidneys, spinal cord and bowel. The plan evaluation was based on conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), uniformity index (UI), DVH parameters, and student’s-t statistics (2 tails). Results: The VMAT technique delivered less maximum dose to the right kidney, left kidney, total kidney, liver, spinal cord, and bowel by 9.3%, 5.9%, 6.7%, 3.9%, 15.1%, 3.9%, and 4.3%, respectively. The averaged V15 for themore » total kidney was 10.21% for IMRT and 7.29% for VMAT. The averaged V20 for the bowel was 19.89% for IMRT and 14.06% for VMAT. On average, the CI for IMRT was 1.20 and 1.16 for VMAT (p = 0.20). The HI was 0.08 for both techniques (p = 0.91) and UI was 1.05 and 1.06 for IMRT and VMAT respectively (p = 0.59). Conclusion: Both techniques achieve adequate PTV coverage. Although VMAT techniques show better normal tissue sparing from excessive dose, no significant differences were observed. Slight discrepancies may rise from different versions of calculation algorithms.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648992
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 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; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ANIMAL TISSUES; BLOOD VESSELS; DOSIMETRY; KIDNEYS; NEOPLASMS; PANCREAS; PLANT TISSUES; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SPINAL CORD

Citation Formats

Harpool, K, Schnell, E, Herman, T, Ahmad, S, and De La Fuente Herman, T. SU-F-T-395: Evaluation of Best Dosimetry Achievable with VMAT and IMRT Treatment Techniques Targeting Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956580.
Harpool, K, Schnell, E, Herman, T, Ahmad, S, & De La Fuente Herman, T. SU-F-T-395: Evaluation of Best Dosimetry Achievable with VMAT and IMRT Treatment Techniques Targeting Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956580.
Harpool, K, Schnell, E, Herman, T, Ahmad, S, and De La Fuente Herman, T. 2016. "SU-F-T-395: Evaluation of Best Dosimetry Achievable with VMAT and IMRT Treatment Techniques Targeting Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956580.
@article{osti_22648992,
title = {SU-F-T-395: Evaluation of Best Dosimetry Achievable with VMAT and IMRT Treatment Techniques Targeting Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer},
author = {Harpool, K and Schnell, E and Herman, T and Ahmad, S and De La Fuente Herman, T},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To determine from retrospective study the most appropriate technique for targeting small borderline operable pancreatic cancer surrounding blood vessels by evaluating the dosimetry and normal tissue sparing achievable using Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). Methods: Treatment plans from ten patients who have undergone treatment with a prescribed dose of 4950 cGy, at 275 cGy per fraction, were analyzed. All plans were replanned using Eclipse TPS (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) with complementary VMAT or IMRT techniques to obtain paired data sets for comparison. The coverage to at least 95% of the planned target volume (PTV) was normalized to receive 100% of the prescription dose. The normal tissue constraints followed the quantitative analysis of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC) guidelines and the organs at risks (OARs) were liver, kidneys, spinal cord and bowel. The plan evaluation was based on conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), uniformity index (UI), DVH parameters, and student’s-t statistics (2 tails). Results: The VMAT technique delivered less maximum dose to the right kidney, left kidney, total kidney, liver, spinal cord, and bowel by 9.3%, 5.9%, 6.7%, 3.9%, 15.1%, 3.9%, and 4.3%, respectively. The averaged V15 for the total kidney was 10.21% for IMRT and 7.29% for VMAT. The averaged V20 for the bowel was 19.89% for IMRT and 14.06% for VMAT. On average, the CI for IMRT was 1.20 and 1.16 for VMAT (p = 0.20). The HI was 0.08 for both techniques (p = 0.91) and UI was 1.05 and 1.06 for IMRT and VMAT respectively (p = 0.59). Conclusion: Both techniques achieve adequate PTV coverage. Although VMAT techniques show better normal tissue sparing from excessive dose, no significant differences were observed. Slight discrepancies may rise from different versions of calculation algorithms.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956580},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) provides high rates of local control (LC) and margin-negative (R0) resections for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC), respectively, with minimal toxicity. Methods and Materials: A single-institution retrospective review was performed for patients with nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer treated with induction chemotherapy followed by SBRT. SBRT was delivered over 5 consecutive fractions using a dose painting technique including 7-10 Gy/fraction to the region of vessel abutment or encasement and 5-6 Gy/fraction to the remainder of the tumor. Restaging scans were performed at 4 weeks, and resectable patients were considered formore » resection. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Seventy-three patients were evaluated, with a median follow-up time of 10.5 months. Median doses of 35 Gy and 25 Gy were delivered to the region of vessel involvement and the remainder of the tumor, respectively. Thirty-two BRPC patients (56.1%) underwent surgery, with 31 undergoing an R0 resection (96.9%). The median OS, 1-year OS, median PFS, and 1-year PFS for BRPC versus LAPC patients was 16.4 months versus 15 months, 72.2% versus 68.1%, 9.7 versus 9.8 months, and 42.8% versus 41%, respectively (all P>.10). BRPC patients who underwent R0 resection had improved median OS (19.3 vs 12.3 months; P=.03), 1-year OS (84.2% vs 58.3%; P=.03), and 1-year PFS (56.5% vs 25.0%; P<.0001), respectively, compared with all nonsurgical patients. The 1-year LC in nonsurgical patients was 81%. We did not observe acute grade ≥3 toxicity, and late grade ≥3 toxicity was minimal (5.3%). Conclusions: SBRT safely facilitates margin-negative resection in patients with BRPC pancreatic cancer while maintaining a high rate of LC in unresectable patients. These data support the expanded implementation of SBRT for pancreatic cancer.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate, in a phase 2 study, the safety and efficacy of induction gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, and cetuximab followed by selective capecitabine-based chemoradiation in patients with borderline resectable or unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (BRPC or LAPC, respectively). Methods and Materials: Patients received gemcitabine and oxaliplatin chemotherapy repeated every 14 days for 6 cycles, combined with weekly cetuximab. Patients were then restaged; “downstaged” patients with resectable disease underwent attempted resection. Remaining patients were treated with chemoradiation consisting of intensity modulated radiation therapy (54 Gy) and concurrent capecitabine; patients with borderline resectable disease or better at restaging underwent attempted resection. Results:more » A total of 39 patients were enrolled, of whom 37 were evaluable. Protocol treatment was generally well tolerated. Median follow-up for all patients was 11.9 months. Overall, 29.7% of patients underwent R0 surgical resection (69.2% of patients with BRPC; 8.3% of patients with LAPC). Overall 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) was 62%, and median PFS was 10.4 months. Median overall survival (OS) was 11.8 months. In patients with LAPC, median OS was 9.3 months; in patients with BRPC, median OS was 24.1 months. In the group of patients who underwent R0 resection (all of which were R0 resections), median survival had not yet been reached at the time of analysis. Conclusions: This regimen was well tolerated in patients with BRPC or LAPC, and almost one-third of patients underwent R0 resection. Although OS for the entire cohort was comparable to that in historical controls, PFS and OS in patients with BRPC and/or who underwent R0 resection was markedly improved.« less
  • Purpose: A challenge in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) management is the high rate of positive posterior margins (PM). Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) allows for higher radiation delivery dose with conformity. This study evaluated the maximal tolerated dose with a dose escalation plan level up to 45 Gy using SBRT in BRPC. Methods and Materials: A single-institution, 3 + 3 phase 1 clinical trial design was used to evaluate 4 dose levels of SBRT delivered in 3 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV) with a simultaneous in-field boost (SIB) to the PM. Dose level (DL) 1 was 30 Gy to the PTV,more » and for dose levels 2 through 4 (DL2-DL4) the dose was 36 Gy. The SIB dose to the PM was 6, 6, 7.5, and 9 Gy for DL-1, DL-2, DL-3, and DL-4, respectively. All patients received 4 treatments of modified FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin) before SBRT. Results: Thirteen patients with a median age of 64 years were enrolled. The median follow-up time was 18 months. The locations of the cancer were head (n=12) and uncinate/neck (n=1). One patient did not undergo SBRT. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Five patients did not undergo resection because of disease progression (1 local, 4 distant); 8 had R0 resection in the PM, and 5 of 8 had vessel reconstruction. Two patients had disease downstaged to T1 and T2 from T3 disease. Four patients are still alive, and 3 are disease free. The median overall survival for resected patients was not reached (9.3: not reached). Conclusion: The SBRT dose of 36 Gy with a 9-Gy SIB to the PM (total 45 Gy) delivered in 3 fractions is safe and well tolerated. The dose-limiting toxicity for a 45-Gy dose was not reached, and further dose escalations are needed in future trials.« less
  • With traditional photon therapy to treat large postoperative pancreatic target volume, it often leads to poor tolerance of the therapy delivered and may contribute to interrupted treatment course. This study was performed to evaluate the potential advantage of using passive-scattering (PS) and modulated-scanning (MS) proton therapy (PT) to reduce normal tissue exposure in postoperative pancreatic cancer treatment. A total of 11 patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer who had been previously treated with PS PT in University of Pennsylvania Roberts Proton Therapy Center from 2010 to 2013 were identified. The clinical target volume (CTV) includes the pancreatic tumor bed as wellmore » as the adjacent high-risk nodal areas. Internal (iCTV) was generated from 4-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT), taking into account target motion from breathing cycle. Three-field and 4-field 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), 5-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy, 2-arc volumetric-modulated radiation therapy, and 2-field PS and MS PT were created on the patients’ average CT. All the plans delivered 50.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV). Overall, 98% of PTV was covered by 95% of the prescription dose and 99% of iCTV received 98% prescription dose. The results show that all the proton plans offer significant lower doses to the left kidney (mean and V{sub 18} {sub Gy}), stomach (mean and V{sub 20} {sub Gy}), and cord (maximum dose) compared with all the photon plans, except 3-field 3DCRT in cord maximum dose. In addition, MS PT also provides lower doses to the right kidney (mean and V{sub 18} {sub Gy}), liver (mean dose), total bowel (V{sub 20} {sub Gy} and mean dose), and small bowel (V{sub 15} {sub Gy} absolute volume ratio) compared with all the photon plans and PS PT. The dosimetric advantage of PT points to the possibility of treating tumor bed and comprehensive nodal areas while providing a more tolerable treatment course that could be used for dose escalation and combining with radiosensitizing chemotherapy.« less
  • Purpose: To determine the health-related quality of life (QOL) during and after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and surgery for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods and Materials: Participants of a prospective, phase 2 multi-institutional trial treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery completed QOL questionnaires (European Organization for Research and Treatment in Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire version 3.0 [EORTC-QLQ C30], EORTC-Pancreatic Cancer module [EORTC-PAN 26], and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic subscale [FACT-Hep]) at baseline, after 2 cycles of neoadjuvant therapy, after surgery, at 6 months from initiation of therapy, and at 6-month intervals for 2 years. Mean scores weremore » compared with baseline. A change >10% was considered a minimal clinically important difference. Results: Of 71 participants in the trial, 55 were eligible for QOL analysis. Compliance ranged from 32% to 74%. The EORTC-QLQ C30 global QOL did not significantly decline after neoadjuvant therapy, whereas the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy global health measure showed a statistically, but not clinically significant decline (−8, P=.02). This was in parallel with deterioration in physical functioning (−14.1, P=.001), increase in diarrhea (+16.7, P=.044), and an improvement in pancreatic pain (−13, P=.01) as per EORTC-PAN 26. Because of poor patient compliance in the nonsurgical group, long-term analysis was performed only from surgically resected participants (n=36). Among those, global QOL returned to baseline levels after 6 months, remaining near baseline through the 24-month visit. Conclusions: The study regimen consisting of 2 cycles of neoadjuvant therapy was completed without a clinically significant QOL deterioration. A transient increase in gastrointestinal symptoms and a decrease in physical functioning were seen after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. In those patients who underwent surgical resection, most domains returned back to baseline levels by 6 months.« less