Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Cancers

Because of its sharp lateral penumbra and steep distal fall-off, proton therapy offers dosimetric advantages over photon therapy. In head and neck cancer, proton therapy has been used for decades in the treatment of skull-base tumors. In recent years the use of proton therapy has been extended to numerous other disease sites, including nasopharynx, oropharynx, nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, periorbital tumors, skin, and salivary gland, or to reirradiation. The aim of this review is to present the physical properties and dosimetric benefit of proton therapy over advanced photon therapy; to summarize the clinical benefit described for each disease site; and to discuss issues of patient selection and cost-effectiveness.

Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

The application of proton beam radiation therapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer has grown tremendously in the past few years. Globally, widespread interest in proton beam therapy has led to multiple research efforts regarding its therapeutic value and cost-effectiveness. The current standard of care using modern photon radiation technology has demonstrated excellent treatment outcomes, yet there are some situations where disease control remains suboptimal with the potential for detrimental acute and chronic toxicities. Due to the advantageous physical properties of the proton beam, proton beam therapy may be superior to photon therapy in some patient subsets for both disease control and patient quality of life. As enthusiasm and excitement for proton beam therapy continue to increase, clinical research and widespread adoption will elucidate the true value of proton beam therapy and give a greater understanding of the full risks and benefits of proton therapy in head and neck cancer.

Comparing Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy With Intensity-Modulated Photon Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer: The Journey From Clinical Trial Concept to Activation

Intensity-modulated proton therapy minimizes the incidental irradiation of normal tissues in patients with head and neck cancer relative to intensity-modulated photon (x-ray) therapy and has been associated with lesser treatment-related toxicity and improved quality of life. A phase II/III randomized trial sponsored by the US National Cancer Institute is currently underway to compare deintensification treatment strategies with intensity-modulated proton therapy vs intensity-modulated photon (x-ray) therapy for patients with advanced-stage oropharyngeal tumors. After significant input from numerous stakeholders, the phase III portion of the randomized trial was redesigned as a noninferiority trial with progression-free survival as the primary endpoint. The process by which that redesign took place is described here.

An update on radiation therapy in head and neck cancers

INTRODUCTION

Technological and technical improvements allowed for significant advances in the field of radiation therapy (RT) of head and neck cancer (HNC). Several organ-sparing strategies have been investigated with the objective to decrease acute and long-term adverse effects and, subsequently, to assure a better quality of life in patients affected by HNC. In this context, intensity modulated irradiation and the use of multimodality-imaging could help clinicians to obtain a rapid dose fall off towards surrounding healthy tissues and a better delineation of targets volumes and organs at risk. Areas covered: A literature review was performed with the aim to offer an update on radiation therapy in HNC. Expert commentary: During these last years, radiation oncologists have observed a continuous changing regarding radiation treatment for HNC. The adoption of intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) and the use of multimodality-imaging for tumor volume definition and organs at risk or delineation have improved the clinical outcomes of HNC patients. In the future, a better integration of functional imaging for target volume delineation as well as adaptive delivery strategies will allow to further personalize radiation oncology in HNC. Furthermore, the latest breakthrough technologies, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-linacs and heavy particles technologies have a great potential to improve treatment-related quality of life in HNC. Future studies are needed to demonstrate the clinical advantages of these new RT technologies in HNC.

Biological Model for Predicting Toxicity in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Receiving Proton Therapy

PURPOSE

To use a linear energy transfer (LET) dependent formula for relative biological effectiveness (RBE) to generate a biological model that can be used to predict toxicity in patients treated with proton therapy for cancer of the head and neck.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients treated with protons to a dose of 60 to 70 Gy (RBE = 1.1) for head and neck cancer were eligible to participate in this study. Treatment plans were developed using graphics processing unit Monte Carlo calculations. The equation, RBE = (1.1)[0.08(LETd)+0.88], was the biological model. The physical model assumes RBE = 1.1. Tumor volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured, and isodose lines were created for 105%-120% of the prescribed dose. Dose to volume of OARs was calculated for both models for comparative purposes. Physician-reported toxicity was graded from 0 to 5 using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03. Patient-reported outcomes were obtained using the Promis10 and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's QLQ-H&N35 instruments.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were included in this study. In each case the biological model revealed an increased dose to several OARs compared with the physical model. For selected OARs, the volume receiving >105% of the target dose was 2-fold to 15-fold greater in the biological model than the volume predicted by the physical model. Patients experienced toxicity that was consistent with the dose to OARs predicted by the biological model. Furthermore, 1 patient developed mucosal ulceration and another developed osteoradionecrosis at the location of a biological hot spot. In each case, the biological hot spot was located 2 mm inside the clinical target volume.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that increases in dose predicted by the biological model are clinically relevant and that LET and RBE corrections and optimization should be a component of the treatment-planning process in proton therapy.

Dosimetric Comparison of Pencil-Beam Scanning and Photon-Based Radiation Therapy as a Boost in Carcinoma of Cervix

Purpose

Brachytherapy is essential for local treatment in cervical carcinoma, but some patients are not suitable for it. Presently, for these patients, the authors prefer a boost by using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The authors evaluated the dosimetric comparison of proton-modulated radiation therapy versus IMRT and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) as a boost to know whether protons can replace photons.

Patients and Methods

Five patients who received external beam radiation therapy to the pelvis by IMRT were reviewed. Three different plans were made, including pencil beam scanning (PBS), IMRT, and VMAT. The prescribed planning target volume (PTV) was 20 Gy in 4 fractions. The dose to 95% PTV (D_95%), the conformity index, and the homogeneity index were evaluated for PTV. The D_max, D_2cc, and D_mean were evaluated for organs at risk along with the integral dose of normal tissue and organs at risk.

Results

The PTV coverage was optimal and homogeneous with modulated protons and photons. For PBS, coverage D_95% was 20.01 ± 0.02 Gy (IMRT, 20.08 ± 0.06 Gy; VMAT, 20.1 ± 0.04 Gy). For the organs at risk, D_max of the bladder for PBS was 21.05 ± 0.05 Gy (IMRT, 20.8 ± 0.21 Gy; VMAT, 21.65 ± 0.41 Gy) while the D_max for the rectum for PBS was 21.04 ± 0.03 Gy (IMRT, 20.81 ± 0.12 Gy; VMAT, 21.66 ± 0.38 Gy). Integral dose to normal tissues in PBS was 14.17 ± 2.65 Gy (IMRT, 25.29 ± 6.35 Gy; VMAT, 25.24 ± 6.24 Gy).

Conclusions

Compared with photons, modulated protons provide comparable conformal plans. However, PBS reduces the integral dose to critical structures significantly compared with IMRT and VMAT. Although PBS may be a better alternative for such cases, further research is required to substantiate such findings.

[Proton therapy for head and neck cancers]

The absence of exit dose and the sharp lateral penumbra are key assets for proton therapy, which are responsible for its dosimetric superiority over advanced photon radiotherapy. Dosimetric comparisons have consistently shown a reduction of the integral dose and the dose to organs at risk favouring intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) over intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The structures that benefit the most of these dosimetric improvements in head and neck cancers are the anterior oral cavity, the posterior fossa, the visual apparatus and swallowing structures. A number of publications have concluded that these dosimetric differences actually translate into reduced toxicities with IMPT, for example with regards to reduced weight loss or need for feeding tube. Patient survival is usually similar to IMRT series, except in base of skull or sinonasal malignancies, where a survival advantage of IMPT could exist. The goals of the present review is to describe the major characteristics of proton therapy, to analyse the clinical data with regards to head and neck cancer patients, and to highlight the issue of patient selection and physical and biological uncertainties.

Dysphagia-optimised Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy Techniques in Pharyngeal Cancers: Is Anyone Going to Swallow it?

Dysphagia after primary chemoradiotherapy or radiation alone in pharyngeal cancers can have a devastating impact on a patient's physical, social and emotional state. Establishing and validating efficient dysphagia-optimised radiotherapy techniques is, therefore, of paramount importance in an era where health-related quality of life measures are increasingly influential determinants of curative management strategies, particularly as the incidence of good prognosis, human papillomavirus-driven pharyngeal cancer in younger patients continues to rise. The preferential sparing achievable with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of key swallowing structures implicated in post-radiation dysfunction, such as the pharyngeal constrictor muscles (PCM), has generated significant research into toxicity-mitigating strategies. The lack of randomised evidence, however, means that there remains uncertainty about the true clinical benefits of the dosimetric gains offered by technological advances in radiotherapy. As a result, we feel that IMRT techniques that spare PCM cannot be incorporated into routine practice. In this review, we discuss the swallowing structures responsible for functional impairment, analyse the studies that have explored the dose-response relationship between these critical structures and late dysphagia, and consider the merits of reported dysphagia-optimised IMRT (Do-IMRT) approaches, thus far. Finally, we discuss the dysphagia/aspiration-related structures (DARS) study (ISRCTN 25458988), which is the first phase III randomised controlled trial designed to investigate the impact of swallow-sparing strategies on improving long-term function. To maximise patient benefits, improvements in radiation delivery will need to integrate with novel treatment paradigms and comprehensive rehabilitation strategies to eventually provide a patient-centric, personalised treatment plan.

Reducing radiation-related morbidity in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma

While radiation therapy is the mainstay of treatment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the anatomic location of the nasopharynx in close proximity to radiation-sensitive organs such as the salivary glands, optic nerves and chiasm, cochlea, brainstem and temporal lobes presents a special challenge. Technological approaches to reducing the morbidity of nasopharyngeal cancer irradiation have been historically successful with the evolution from 2D techniques to increasingly conformal forms of radiation therapy. This report reviews normal tissue dose constraints and major considerations in target delineation for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer in the intensity-modulated radiation therapy era. Furthermore, this report discusses more contemporary approaches to toxicity reduction such as the judicious reduction or omission of radiation to low-risk regions and the potential role of particle beam therapy.

Water equivalent path length calculations using scatter-corrected head and neck CBCT images to evaluate patients for adaptive proton therapy

Proton therapy has dosimetric advantages due to the well-defined range of the proton beam over photon radiotherapy. When the proton beams, however, are delivered to the patient in fractionated radiation treatment, the treatment outcome is affected by delivery uncertainties such as anatomic change in the patient and daily patient setup error. This study aims at establishing a method to evaluate the dosimetric impact of the anatomic change and patient setup error during head and neck proton therapy. Range variations due to the delivery uncertainties were assessed by calculating water equivalent path length (WEPL) to the distal edge of tumor volume using planning CT and weekly treatment cone-beam CT (CBCT) images. Specifically, mean difference and root mean squared deviation (RMSD) of the distal WEPLs were calculated as the weekly range variations. To accurately calculate the distal WEPLs, an existing CBCT scatter correction algorithm was used. An automatic rigid registration was used to align the planning CT and treatment CBCT images, simulating a six degree-of-freedom couch correction at treatments. The authors conclude that the dosimetric impact of the anatomic change and patient setup error was reasonably captured in the differences of the distal WEPL variation with a range calculation uncertainty of 2%. The proposed method to calculate the distal WEPL using the scatter-corrected CBCT images can be an essential tool to decide the necessity of re-planning in adaptive proton therapy.

Intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharynx cancer - A case matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Owing to its physical properties, intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) used for patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma has the ability to reduce the dose to organs at risk compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) while maintaining adequate tumor coverage. Our aim was to compare the clinical outcomes of these two treatment modalities.

METHODS

We performed a 1:2 matching of IMPT to IMRT patients. Our study cohort consisted of IMPT patients from a prospective quality of life study and consecutive IMRT patients treated at a single institution during the period 2010-2014. Patients were matched on unilateral/bilateral treatment, disease site, human papillomavirus status, T and N status, smoking status, and receipt of concomitant chemotherapy. Survival analyzes were performed using a Cox model and binary toxicity endpoints using a logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty IMPT and 100 IMRT patients were included. The median follow-up time was 32months. There were no imbalances in patient/tumor characteristics except for age (mean age 56.8years for IMRT patients and 61.1years for IMPT patients, p-value=0.010). Statistically significant differences were not observed in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR)=0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12-2.50, p-value=0.44) or in progression-free survival (HR=1.02; 95% CI: 0.41-2.54; p-value=0.96). The age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) for the presence of a gastrostomy (G)-tube during treatment for IMPT vs IMRT were OR=0.53; 95% CI: 0.24-1.15; p-value=0.11 and OR=0.43; 95% CI: 0.16-1.17; p-value=0.10 at 3months after treatment. When considering the pre-planned composite endpoint of grade 3 weight loss or G-tube presence, the ORs were OR=0.44; 95% CI: 0.19-1.0; p-value=0.05 at 3months after treatment and OR=0.23; 95% CI: 0.07-0.73; p-value=0.01 at 1year after treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that IMPT is associated with reduced rates of feeding tube dependency and severe weight loss without jeopardizing outcome. Prospective multicenter randomized trials are needed to validate such findings.

Dosimetric advantages of intensity-modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer compared with intensity-modulated radiation: A case-matched control analysis

A potential advantage of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) over intensity-modulated (photon) radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC) is lower radiation dose to several critical structures involved in the development of nausea and vomiting, mucositis, and dysphagia. The purpose of this study was to quantify doses to critical structures for patients with OPC treated with IMPT and compare those with doses on IMRT plans generated for the same patients and with a matched cohort of patients actually treated with IMRT. In this study, 25 patients newly diagnosed with OPC were treated with IMPT between 2011 and 2012. Comparison IMRT plans were generated for these patients and for additional IMRT-treated controls extracted from a database of patients with OPC treated between 2000 and 2009. Cases were matched based on the following criteria, in order: unilateral vs bilateral therapy, tonsil vs base of tongue primary, T-category, N-category, concurrent chemotherapy, induction chemotherapy, smoking status, sex, and age. Results showed that the mean doses to the anterior and posterior oral cavity, hard palate, larynx, mandible, and esophagus were significantly lower with IMPT than with IMRT comparison plans generated for the same cohort, as were doses to several central nervous system structures involved in the nausea and vomiting response. Similar differences were found when comparing dose to organs at risks (OARs) between the IMPT cohort and the case-matched IMRT cohort. In conclusion, these findings suggest that patients with OPC treated with IMPT may experience fewer and less severe side effects during therapy. This may be the result of decreased beam path toxicities with IMPT due to lower doses to several dysphagia, odynophagia, and nausea and vomiting-associated OARs. Further study is needed to evaluate differences in long-term disease control and chronic toxicity between patients with OPC treated with IMPT in comparison to those treated with IMRT.

Clinical Outcomes and Patterns of Disease Recurrence After Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Oropharyngeal Squamous Carcinoma

PURPOSE

A single-institution prospective study was conducted to assess disease control and toxicity of proton therapy for patients with head and neck cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Disease control, toxicity, functional outcomes, and patterns of failure for the initial cohort of patients with oropharyngeal squamous carcinoma (OPC) treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) were prospectively collected in 2 registry studies at a single institution. Locoregional failures were analyzed by using deformable image registration.

RESULTS

Fifty patients with OPC treated from March 3, 2011, to July 2014 formed the cohort. Eighty-four percent were male, 50% had never smoked, 98% had stage III/IV disease, 64% received concurrent therapy, and 35% received induction chemotherapy. Forty-four of 45 tumors (98%) tested for p16 were positive. All patients received IMPT (multifield optimization to n=46; single-field optimization to n=4). No Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 4 or 5 toxicities were observed. The most common grade 3 toxicities were acute mucositis in 58% of patients and late dysphagia in 12%. Eleven patients had a gastrostomy (feeding) tube placed during therapy, but none had a feeding tube at last follow-up. At a median follow-up time of 29 months, 5 patients had disease recurrence: local in 1, local and regional in 1, regional in 2, and distant in 1. The 2-year actuarial overall and progression-free survival rates were 94.5% and 88.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncologic, toxicity, and functional outcomes after IMPT for OPC are encouraging and provide the basis for ongoing and future clinical studies.

Postoperative Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma

Purpose

Postoperative radiation therapy can improve control for adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) of the head and neck; however, delivering adequate dose to the tumor bed must be balanced with limiting dose to nearby critical organs. Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may help improve the therapeutic ratio, though concerns exist regarding tissue heterogeneity and other sources of uncertainty in several head and neck subsites. We report control and toxicity outcomes for patients with ACC of the head and neck treated at a single institution with postoperative IMPT and robust planning and analysis.

Patients and Methods

Sixteen patients with head and neck ACC treated with postoperative IMPT were identified. Intensity-modulated proton therapy was delivered by using multifield optimization. Robust planning and analysis were performed. The median dose was 60 (range, 60 to 70) Gy (RBE) (Gy [relative biological effectiveness]). Adjuvant IMPT was given with (N = 12) or without (N = 4) platinum-based chemotherapy. Tumor control outcomes were recorded from the medical record, and acute and chronic toxicities were graded weekly during treatment and upon follow-up per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0 (CTCAE v4).

Results

Median follow-up is 24.9 (range, 9.2 to 40.2) months. One patient developed local and distant recurrence and subsequently died. The remaining 15 patients are alive without evidence of disease. Four patients experienced acute grade 3 toxicities: dermatitis (N = 3) and oral mucositis (N = 1). One patient developed a chronic grade 4 optic nerve disorder. There were no grade 5 toxicities.

Conclusions

Intensity-modulated proton therapy is a feasible option for patients with ACC of the head and neck in the postoperative setting. Robust treatment planning and plan analysis can be performed such that uncertainties and tissue heterogeneities do not appear to limit safe and effective IMPT delivery. Safety and efficacy appear comparable to those of other types of radiation therapy, but further follow-up of clinical outcomes is needed.

Acute toxicity in comprehensive head and neck radiation for nasopharynx and paranasal sinus cancers: cohort comparison of 3D conformal proton therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate acute toxicity endpoints in a cohort of patients receiving head and neck radiation with proton therapy or intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

METHODS

Forty patients received comprehensive head and neck radiation including bilateral cervical nodal radiation, given with or without chemotherapy, for tumors of the nasopharynx, nasal cavity or paranasal sinuses, any T stage, N0-2. Fourteen received comprehensive treatment with proton therapy, and 26 were treated with IMRT, either comprehensively or matched to proton therapy delivered to the primary tumor site. Toxicity endpoints assessed included g-tube dependence at the completion of radiation and at 3 months after radiation, opioid pain medication requirement compared to pretreatment normalized as equivalent morphine dose (EMD) at completion of treatment, and at 1 and 3 months after radiation.

RESULTS

In a multivariable model including confounding variables of concurrent chemotherapy and involved nodal disease, comprehensive head and neck radiation therapy using proton therapy was associated with a lower opioid pain requirement at the completion of radiation and a lower rate of gastrostomy tube dependence by the completion of radiation therapy and at 3 months after radiation compared to IMRT. Proton therapy was associated with statistically significant lower mean doses to the oral cavity, esophagus, larynx, and parotid glands. In subgroup analysis of 32 patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy, there was a statistically significant correlation with a greater opioid pain medication requirement at the completion of radiation and both increasing mean dose to the oral cavity and to the esophagus.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton therapy was associated with significantly reduced radiation dose to assessed non-target normal tissues and a reduced rate of gastrostomy tube dependence and opioid pain medication requirements. This warrants further evaluation in larger studies, ideally with patient-reported toxicity outcomes and quality of life endpoints.