skip to main content

Title: Intensity Modulated Proton Beam Radiation for Brachytherapy in Patients With Cervical Carcinoma

Purpose: To evaluate intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in patients with cervical cancer in terms of coverage, conformity, and dose–volume histogram (DVH) parameters correlated with recommendations from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided brachytherapy. Methods and Materials: Eleven patients with histologically proven cervical cancer underwent primary chemoradiation for the pelvic lymph nodes, the uterus, the cervix, and the parametric region, with a symmetric margin of 1 cm. The prescription was for 50.4 Gy, with 1.8 Gy per fraction. The prescribed dose to the parametria was 2.12 Gy up to 59.36 Gy in 28 fractions as a simultaneous boost. For several reasons, the patients were unable to undergo brachytherapy. As an alternative, IMPT was planned with 5 fractions of 6 Gy to the cervix, including the macroscopic tumor with an MRI-guided target definition, with an isotropic margin of 5 mm for planning target volume (PTV) definition. Groupe-Europeen de Curietherapie and European society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) criteria were used for DVH evaluation. Reference comparison plans were optimized for volumetric modulated rapid arc (VMAT) therapy with the RapidArc (RA). Results: The dose to the high-risk volume was calculated with α/β = 10 with 89.6 Gy. For IMPT, the clinical target volume showed amore » mean dose of 38.2 ± 5.0 Gy (35.0 ±1.8 Gy for RA). The D{sub 98%} was 31.9 ± 2.6 Gy (RA: 30.8 ± 1.0 Gy). With regard to the organs at risk, the 2Gy Equivalent Dose (EQD2) (α/β = 3) to 2 cm{sup 3} of the rectal wall, sigmoid wall, and bladder wall was 62.2 ± 6.4 Gy, 57.8 ± 6.1 Gy, and 80.6 ± 8.7 Gy (for RA: 75.3 ± 6.1 Gy, 66.9 ± 6.9 Gy, and 89.0 ± 7.2 Gy, respectively). For the IMPT boost plans in combination with external beam radiation therapy, all DVH parameters correlated with <5% risk for grades 2 to 4 late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. Conclusion: In patients who are not eligible for brachytherapy, IMPT as a boost technique additionally to external beam radiation therapy provides good target coverage and conformity and superior DVH parameters, compared with recommendations to MRI-guided brachytherapy. For selected patients, IMPT might be a valid alternative to brachytherapy and also superior to reference VMAT plans.« less
Authors:
 [1] ;  [2] ;  [1] ;  [3] ;  [2] ;  [1] ; ;  [2]
  1. Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona (Switzerland)
  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin (Germany)
  3. Department of Gynecology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin (Germany)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22278267
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 87; Journal Issue: 5; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2013 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BLADDER; BRACHYTHERAPY; CARCINOMAS; EXTERNAL BEAM RADIATION THERAPY; LYMPH NODES; NMR IMAGING; PLANNING; PROTON BEAMS; RECTUM; TOXICITY; UROGENITAL SYSTEM DISEASES; UTERUS