1
|
Ming X, Mao J, Ma N, Chen J, Wang W, Sheng Y, Wu K. Intensity-modulated proton and carbon-ion radiotherapy using a fixed-beam system for locally advanced lung cancer: dosimetric comparison with x-ray radiotherapy and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) evaluation. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:015025. [PMID: 38064747 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad13d1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2023] [Accepted: 12/08/2023] [Indexed: 01/03/2024]
Abstract
Objective. To assess the dosimetric consequences and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the organs at risk (OARs) in intensity-modulated particle radiotherapy of proton (IMPT) and carbon-ion (IMCT) using a fixed-beam delivery system when compared with intensity-modulated photon radiotherapy (IMRT) for locally advanced small-cell lung cancer.Approach. The plans were all designed under the same total relative biological effectiveness (RBE)-weighted prescription dose, in which the planning target volume (PTV) of the internal gross target volume(IGTV) and the PTV of the clinical target volume was irradiated with 69.3 Gy (RBE) and 63 Gy (RBE), respectively, using a simultaneously integrated boosting (SIB) technique. NTCPs were estimated for heart, lung, esophagus and spinal cord by Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) and logistic models. Dose escalation was simulated under the desired NTCP values (0.05, 0.10 and 0.50) of the three radiation techniques.Main results. Under the similar target coverage, almost all OARs were significantly better spared (p< 0.05) when using the particle radiotherapy except for D1cc (the dose to 1 cm3of the volume) of the proximal bronchial tree (p> 0.05). At least 57.6% of mean heart dose, 28.8% of mean lung dose and 19.1% of mean esophageal dose were reduced compared with IMRT. The mean NTCP of radiation-induced pneumonitis (RP) in the ipsilateral lung was 0.39 ± 0.33 (0.39 ± 0.31) in IMPT plans and 0.36 ± 0.32 (0.35 ± 0.30) in IMCT plans compared with 0.66 ± 0.30 (0.64 ± 0.28) in IMRT plans by LKB (logistic) models. The target dose could be escalated to 78.3/76.9 Gy (RBE) in IMPT/IMCT plans compared with 61.7 Gy (RBE) in IMRT plans when 0.50 of NTCP in terms of RP in the ipsilateral lung was applied.Significance. This study presents the potential of better control of the side effects and improvement of local control originating from the dosimetric advantage with the application of IMPT and IMCT with the SIB technique for locally advanced lung cancer, even with limited beam directions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xue Ming
- Department of Medical Physics, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
| | - Jingfang Mao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
| | - Ningyi Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
| | - Jian Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
| | - Weiwei Wang
- Department of Medical Physics, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
| | - Yinxiangzi Sheng
- Department of Medical Physics, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Shanghai, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
| | - Kailiang Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Walls GM, Giacometti V, Apte A, Thor M, McCann C, Hanna GG, O'Connor J, Deasy JO, Hounsell AR, Butterworth KT, Cole AJ, Jain S, McGarry CK. Validation of an established deep learning auto-segmentation tool for cardiac substructures in 4D radiotherapy planning scans. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2022; 23:118-126. [PMID: 35941861 PMCID: PMC9356270 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.07.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2022] [Revised: 07/20/2022] [Accepted: 07/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Cardiotoxicity is a common complication of lung cancer radiotherapy. Segmentation of cardiac substructures is time-consuming and challenging. Deep learning segmentation tools can perform this task in 3D and 4D scans. Performance is high when assessed geometrically, dosimetrically and clinically. Auto-segmentation tools may accelerate clinical workflows and enable research.
Background Emerging data suggest that dose-sparing several key cardiac regions is prognostically beneficial in lung cancer radiotherapy. The cardiac substructures are challenging to contour due to their complex geometry, poor soft tissue definition on computed tomography (CT) and cardiorespiratory motion artefact. A neural network was previously trained to generate the cardiac substructures using three-dimensional radiotherapy planning CT scans (3D-CT). In this study, the performance of that tool on the average intensity projection from four-dimensional (4D) CT scans (4D-AVE), now commonly used in lung radiotherapy, was evaluated. Materials and Methods The 4D-AVE of n=20 patients completing radiotherapy for lung cancer 2015–2020 underwent manual and automated cardiac substructure segmentation. Manual and automated substructures were compared geometrically and dosimetrically. Two senior clinicians also qualitatively assessed the auto-segmentation tool’s output. Results Geometric comparison of the automated and manual segmentations exhibited high levels of similarity across parameters, including volume difference (11.8% overall) and Dice similarity coefficient (0.85 overall), and were consistent with 3D-CT performance. Differences in mean (median 0.2 Gy, range −1.6–0.3 Gy) and maximum (median 0.4 Gy, range −2.2–0.9 Gy) doses to substructures were generally small. Nearly all structures (99.5 %) were deemed to be appropriate for clinical use without further editing. Conclusions Cardiac substructure auto-segmentation using a deep learning-based tool trained on a 3D-CT dataset was feasible on the 4D-AVE scan, meaning this tool is suitable for use on 4D-CT radiotherapy planning scans. Application of this tool would increase the practicality of routine clinical cardiac substructure delineation, and enable further cardiac radiation effects research.
Collapse
|
3
|
Cao X, Liu P, Gao XS, Shang S, Liu J, Wang Z, Su M, Ding X. Redefine the Role of Proton Beam Therapy for the Locally-Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Assisting the Reduction of Acute Hematologic Toxicity. Front Oncol 2022; 12:812031. [PMID: 35847952 PMCID: PMC9280487 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.812031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2021] [Accepted: 05/27/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
PurposeTo investigate the potential clinical benefit of utilizing intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) to reduce acute hematologic toxicity for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) patients and explore the feasibility of a model-based patient selection approach via the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).MethodsTwenty patients with LA-NSCLC were retrospectively selected. Volumetric modulated arc photon therapy (VMAT) and IMPT plans were generated with a prescription dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions. A wide range of cases with varied tumor size, location, stations of metastatic lymph nodes were selected to represent the general cancer group. Contouring and treatment planning followed RTOG-1308 protocol. Doses to thoracic vertebral bodies (TVB) and other organ at risks were compared. Risk of grade ≥ 3 acute hematologic toxicity (HT3+) were calculated based on the NTCP model, and patients with a reduction on NTCP of HT3+ from VMAT to IMPT (△NTCP_HT3+) ≥ 10% were considered to ‘significantly benefit from proton therapy.’ResultsCompared to VMAT, IMPT significantly reduced the dose to the TVB, the lung, the heart, the esophagus and the spinal cord. Tumor distance to TVB was significantly associated with △NTCP _HT3+ ≥ 10%. For the patients with tumor distance ≤ 0.7 cm to TVB, the absolute reduction of dose (mean, V30 and V40) to TVB was significantly lower than that in patients with tumor distance > 0.7 cm.ConclusionIMPT decreased the probability of HT3+ compared to VMAT by reducing the dose to the TVB in LA-NSCLC patients. Patients with tumor distance to TVB less than 0.7 cm are likely to benefit most from proton over photon therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xi Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Peilin Liu
- Institute of Medical Technology, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China
| | - Xian-shu Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
- Institute of Medical Technology, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China
- *Correspondence: Xuanfeng Ding, ; Xian-shu Gao,
| | - Shiyu Shang
- Department of Oncology, Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, China
| | - Jiayu Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Zishen Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hebei Yizhou Tumor Hospital, Zhuozhou, China
| | - Mengmeng Su
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Proton Beam Therapy Center, Royal Oak, MI, United States
- *Correspondence: Xuanfeng Ding, ; Xian-shu Gao,
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Liu BY, Rehmani S, Kale MS, Marshall D, Rosenzweig KE, Kong CY, Wisnivesky J, Sigel K. Risk of Cardiovascular Toxicity According to Tumor Laterality Among Older Patients With Early Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Radiation Therapy. Chest 2022; 161:1666-1674. [DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.12.667] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2021] [Revised: 12/20/2021] [Accepted: 12/23/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022] Open
|
5
|
The dose accumulation and the impact of deformable image registration on dose reporting parameters in a moving patient undergoing proton radiotherapy. Radiol Oncol 2022; 56:248-258. [PMID: 35575586 PMCID: PMC9122289 DOI: 10.2478/raon-2022-0016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2021] [Accepted: 02/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Potential changes in patient anatomy during proton radiotherapy may lead to a deviation of the delivered dose. A dose estimate can be computed through a deformable image registration (DIR) driven dose accumulation. The present study evaluates the accumulated dose uncertainties in a patient subject to an inadvertent breathing associated motion. MATERIALS AND METHODS A virtual lung tumour was inserted into a pair of single participant landmark annotated computed tomography images depicting opposite breathing phases, with the deep inspiration breath-hold the planning reference and the exhale the off-reference geometry. A novel Monte Carlo N-Particle, Version 6 (MCNP6) dose engine was developed, validated and used in treatment plan optimization. Three DIR methods were compared and used to transfer the exhale simulated dose to the reference geometry. Dose conformity and homogeneity measures from International Committee on Radioactivity Units and Measurements (ICRU) reports 78 and 83 were evaluated on simulated dose distributions registered with different DIR algorithms. RESULTS The MCNP6 dose engine handled patient-like geometries in reasonable dose calculation times. All registration methods were able to align image associated landmarks to distances, comparable to voxel sizes. A moderate deterioration of ICRU measures was encountered in comparing doses in on and off-reference anatomy. There were statistically significant DIR driven differences in ICRU measures, particularly a 10% difference in the relative D98% for planning tumour volume and in the 3 mm/3% gamma passing rate. CONCLUSIONS T he dose accumulation over two anatomies resulted in a DIR driven uncertainty, important in reporting the associated ICRU measures for quality assurance.
Collapse
|
6
|
Burnet NG, Mee T, Gaito S, Kirkby NF, Aitkenhead AH, Anandadas CN, Aznar MC, Barraclough LH, Borst G, Charlwood FC, Clarke M, Colaco RJ, Crellin AM, Defourney NN, Hague CJ, Harris M, Henthorn NT, Hopkins KI, Hwang E, Ingram SP, Kirkby KJ, Lee LW, Lines D, Lingard Z, Lowe M, Mackay RI, McBain CA, Merchant MJ, Noble DJ, Pan S, Price JM, Radhakrishna G, Reboredo-Gil D, Salem A, Sashidharan S, Sitch P, Smith E, Smith EAK, Taylor MJ, Thomson DJ, Thorp NJ, Underwood TSA, Warmenhoven JW, Wylie JP, Whitfield G. Estimating the percentage of patients who might benefit from proton beam therapy instead of X-ray radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2022; 95:20211175. [PMID: 35220723 PMCID: PMC10993980 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20211175] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2021] [Revised: 01/11/2022] [Accepted: 01/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES High-energy Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) commenced in England in 2018 and NHS England commissions PBT for 1.5% of patients receiving radical radiotherapy. We sought expert opinion on the level of provision. METHODS Invitations were sent to 41 colleagues working in PBT, most at one UK centre, to contribute by completing a spreadsheet. 39 responded: 23 (59%) completed the spreadsheet; 16 (41%) declined, arguing that clinical outcome data are lacking, but joined six additional site-specialist oncologists for two consensus meetings. The spreadsheet was pre-populated with incidence data from Cancer Research UK and radiotherapy use data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. 'Mechanisms of Benefit' of reduced growth impairment, reduced toxicity, dose escalation and reduced second cancer risk were examined. RESULTS The most reliable figure for percentage of radical radiotherapy patients likely to benefit from PBT was that agreed by 95% of the 23 respondents at 4.3%, slightly larger than current provision. The median was 15% (range 4-92%) and consensus median 13%. The biggest estimated potential benefit was from reducing toxicity, median benefit to 15% (range 4-92%), followed by dose escalation median 3% (range 0 to 47%); consensus values were 12 and 3%. Reduced growth impairment and reduced second cancer risk were calculated to benefit 0.5% and 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS The most secure estimate of percentage benefit was 4.3% but insufficient clinical outcome data exist for confident estimates. The study supports the NHS approach of using the evidence base and developing it through randomised trials, non-randomised studies and outcomes tracking. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Less is known about the percentage of patients who may benefit from PBT than is generally acknowledged. Expert opinion varies widely. Insufficient clinical outcome data exist to provide robust estimates. Considerable further work is needed to address this, including international collaboration; much is already underway but will take time to provide mature data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil G Burnet
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Thomas Mee
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Simona Gaito
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Norman F Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Adam H Aitkenhead
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Carmel N Anandadas
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Marianne C Aznar
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Lisa H Barraclough
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Gerben Borst
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Frances C Charlwood
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew Clarke
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Rovel J Colaco
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Adrian M Crellin
- NHS England National Clinical Lead Proton Beam Therapy, Leeds
Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds and St James's
Institute of Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett
Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK, Leeds,
United Kingdom
| | - Noemie N Defourney
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Christina J Hague
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Margaret Harris
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Nicholas T Henthorn
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Kirsten I Hopkins
- International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna International
Centre, Vienna,
Austria
| | - E Hwang
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Radiation
Oncology Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia and
Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sam P Ingram
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Karen J Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Lip W Lee
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - David Lines
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Zoe Lingard
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Matthew Lowe
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ranald I Mackay
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Catherine A McBain
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Merchant
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - David J Noble
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Edinburgh Cancer Centre,
Western General Hospital,
Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Shermaine Pan
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - James M Price
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | | | - David Reboredo-Gil
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ahmed Salem
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | | | - Peter Sitch
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ed Smith
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Foundation
Trust, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Edward AK Smith
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Taylor
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - David J Thomson
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Nicola J Thorp
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Tracy SA Underwood
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - John W Warmenhoven
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - James P Wylie
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Gillian Whitfield
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Substantial Sparing of Organs at Risk with Modern Proton Therapy in Lung Cancer, but Altered Breathing Patterns Can Jeopardize Target Coverage. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14061365. [PMID: 35326516 PMCID: PMC8945974 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14061365] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2022] [Revised: 03/01/2022] [Accepted: 03/04/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) is a fine balance between toxicity and cure. Modern proton therapy might offer a more gentle radiation treatment compared to state-of-the-art photon radiotherapy, but is also more susceptible to the influence of breathing motion and anatomical changes. In this study, the influence of such uncertainties on treatment delivery was thoroughly investigated. Modern proton therapy did indeed show potential to reduce the risk of toxicity for the heart and lungs. This potential was maintained under the influence of anatomical and delivery uncertainties. However, changes in breathing motion jeopardized the target dose distribution in a subset of patients. We therefore recommend imaging at onset or early in treatment to recognize these patients and adapt the treatment. Abstract Enhancing treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) by using pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBS-PT) is attractive, but little knowledge exists on the effects of uncertainties occurring between the planning (Plan) and the start of treatment (Start). In this prospective simulation study, we investigated the clinical potential for PBS-PT under the influence of such uncertainties. Imaging with 4DCT at Plan and Start was carried out for 15 patients that received state-of-the-art intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Three PBS-PT plans were created per patient: 3D robust single-field uniform dose (SFUD), 3D robust intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), and 4D robust IMPT (4DIMPT). These were exposed to setup and range uncertainties and breathing motion at Plan, and changes in breathing motion and anatomy at Start. Target coverage and dose-volume parameters relevant for toxicity were compared. The organ at risk sparing at Plan was greatest with IMPT, followed by 4DIMPT, SFUD and IMRT, and persisted at Start. All plans met the preset criteria for target robustness at Plan. At Start, three patients had a lack of CTV coverage with PBS-PT. In conclusion, the clinical potential for heart and lung toxicity reduction with PBS-PT was substantial and persistent. Altered breathing patterns between Plan and Start jeopardized target coverage for all PBS-PT techniques.
Collapse
|
8
|
Miyasaka Y, Sato H, Okano N, Kubo N, Kawamura H, Ohno T. A Promising Treatment Strategy for Lung Cancer: A Combination of Radiotherapy and Immunotherapy. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 14:203. [PMID: 35008367 PMCID: PMC8750493 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14010203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2021] [Revised: 12/26/2021] [Accepted: 12/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide despite advances in treatment. In the past few decades, radiotherapy has achieved outstanding technical advances and is being widely used as a definitive, prophylactic, or palliative treatment of patients with lung cancer. The anti-tumor effects of radiotherapy are considered to result in DNA damage in cancer cells. Moreover, recent evidence has demonstrated another advantage of radiotherapy: the induction of anti-tumor immune responses, which play an essential role in cancer control. In contrast, radiotherapy induces an immunosuppressive response. These conflicting reactions after radiotherapy suggest that maximizing immune response to radiotherapy by combining immunotherapy has potential to achieve more effective anti-tumor response than using each alone. Immune checkpoint molecules, such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4, programmed cell death-1/programmed death-ligand 1, and their inhibitors, have attracted significant attention for overcoming the immunosuppressive conditions in patients with cancer. Therefore, the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiotherapy is promising. Emerging preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated the rationale for these combination strategies. In this review, we outlined evidence suggesting that combination of radiotherapy, including particle therapy using protons and carbon ions, with immunotherapy in lung cancer treatment could be a promising treatment strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuhei Miyasaka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22 Showa-Machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan; (Y.M.); (N.O.); (N.K.); (H.K.); (T.O.)
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22 Showa-Machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan
| | - Hiro Sato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22 Showa-Machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan; (Y.M.); (N.O.); (N.K.); (H.K.); (T.O.)
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22 Showa-Machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan
| | - Naoko Okano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22 Showa-Machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan; (Y.M.); (N.O.); (N.K.); (H.K.); (T.O.)
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22 Showa-Machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan
| | - Nobuteru Kubo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22 Showa-Machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan; (Y.M.); (N.O.); (N.K.); (H.K.); (T.O.)
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22 Showa-Machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan
| | - Hidemasa Kawamura
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22 Showa-Machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan; (Y.M.); (N.O.); (N.K.); (H.K.); (T.O.)
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22 Showa-Machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan
| | - Tatsuya Ohno
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22 Showa-Machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan; (Y.M.); (N.O.); (N.K.); (H.K.); (T.O.)
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22 Showa-Machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Hyer DE, Ding X, Rong Y. Proton therapy needs further technological development to fulfill the promise of becoming a superior treatment modality (compared to photon therapy). J Appl Clin Med Phys 2021; 22:4-11. [PMID: 34730268 PMCID: PMC8598137 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13450] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2021] [Accepted: 01/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel E. Hyer
- Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of IowaIowa CityIowaUSA
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation OncologyWilliam Beaumont HospitalRoyal ParkMichiganUSA
| | - Yi Rong
- Department of Radiation OncologyMayo Clinic ArizonaPhoenixArizonaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Zientara N, Giles E, Le H, Short M. A scoping review of patient selection methods for proton therapy. J Med Radiat Sci 2021; 69:108-121. [PMID: 34476905 PMCID: PMC8892419 DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2021] [Revised: 07/08/2021] [Accepted: 08/07/2021] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
The aim was to explore various national and international clinical decision‐making tools and dose comparison methods used for selecting cancer patients for proton versus X‐ray radiation therapy. To address this aim, a literature search using defined scoping review methods was performed in Medline and Embase databases as well as grey literature. Articles published between 1 January 2015 and 4 August 2020 and those that clearly stated methods of proton versus X‐ray therapy patient selection and those published in English were eligible for inclusion. In total, 321 studies were identified of which 49 articles met the study’s inclusion criteria representing 13 countries. Six different clinical decision‐making tools and 14 dose comparison methods were identified, demonstrating variability within countries and internationally. Proton therapy was indicated for all paediatric patients except those with lymphoma and re‐irradiation where individualised model‐based selection was required. The most commonly reported patient selection tools included the Normal Tissue Complication Probability model, followed by cost‐effectiveness modelling and dosimetry comparison. Model‐based selection methods were most commonly applied for head and neck clinical indications in adult cohorts (48% of studies). While no ‘Gold Standard’ currently exists for proton therapy patient selection with variations evidenced globally, some of the patient selection methods identified in this review can be used to inform future practice in Australia. As literature was not identified from all countries where proton therapy centres are available, further research is needed to evaluate patient selection methods in these jurisdictions for a comprehensive overview.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Zientara
- UniSA Cancer Research Institute, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Eileen Giles
- UniSA Cancer Research Institute, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Hien Le
- UniSA Cancer Research Institute, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Michala Short
- UniSA Cancer Research Institute, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Loizeau N, Fabiano S, Papp D, Stützer K, Jakobi A, Bandurska-Luque A, Troost EGC, Richter C, Unkelbach J. Optimal Allocation of Proton Therapy Slots in Combined Proton-Photon Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 111:196-207. [PMID: 33848609 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.03.054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2020] [Revised: 03/02/2021] [Accepted: 03/30/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Proton therapy is a limited resource that is not available to all patients who may benefit from it. We investigated combined proton-photon treatments, in which some fractions are delivered with protons and the remaining fractions with photons, as an approach to maximize the benefit of limited proton therapy resources at a population level. METHODS AND MATERIALS To quantify differences in normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP) between protons and photons, we considered a cohort of 45 patients with head and neck cancer for whom intensity modulated radiation therapy and intensity modulated proton therapy plans were previously created, in combination with NTCP models for xerostomia and dysphagia considered in the Netherlands for proton patient selection. Assuming limited availability of proton slots, we developed methods to optimally assign proton fractions in combined proton-photon treatments to minimize the average NTCP on a population level. The combined treatments were compared with patient selection strategies in which patients are assigned to single-modality proton or photon treatments. RESULTS There is a benefit of combined proton-photon treatments compared with patient selection, owing to the nonlinearity of NTCP functions; that is, the initial proton fractions are the most beneficial, whereas additional proton fractions have a decreasing benefit when a flatter part of the NTCP curve is reached. This effect was small for the patient cohort and NTCP models considered, but it may be larger if dose-response relationships are better known. In addition, when proton slots are limited, patient selection methods face a trade-off between leaving slots unused and blocking slots for future patients who may have a larger benefit. Combined proton-photon treatments with flexible proton slot assignment provide a method to make optimal use of all available resources. CONCLUSIONS Combined proton-photon treatments allow for better use of limited proton therapy resources. The benefit over patient selection schemes depends on the NTCP models and the dose differences between protons and photons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolas Loizeau
- Physics Institute, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
| | - Silvia Fabiano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Dávid Papp
- Department of Mathematics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
| | - Kristin Stützer
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Annika Jakobi
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Anna Bandurska-Luque
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Christian Richter
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Jan Unkelbach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Taasti VT, Hattu D, Vaassen F, Canters R, Velders M, Mannens J, van Loon J, Rinaldi I, Unipan M, van Elmpt W. Treatment planning and 4D robust evaluation strategy for proton therapy of lung tumors with large motion amplitude. Med Phys 2021; 48:4425-4437. [PMID: 34214201 PMCID: PMC8456954 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15067] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2021] [Revised: 05/29/2021] [Accepted: 06/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for lung tumors with a large tumor movement is challenging due to loss of robustness in the target coverage. Often an upper cut‐off at 5‐mm tumor movement is used for proton patient selection. In this study, we propose (1) a robust and easily implementable treatment planning strategy for lung tumors with a movement larger than 5 mm, and (2) a four‐dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) robust evaluation strategy for evaluating the dose distribution on the breathing phases. Materials and methods We created a treatment planning strategy based on the internal target volume (ITV) concept (aim 1). The ITV was created as a union of the clinical target volumes (CTVs) on the eight 4DCT phases. The ITV expanded by 2 mm was the target during robust optimization on the average CT (avgCT). The clinical plan acceptability was judged based on a robust evaluation, computing the voxel‐wise min and max (VWmin/max) doses over 28 error scenarios (range and setup errors) on the avgCT. The plans were created in RayStation (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden) using a Monte Carlo dose engine, commissioned for our Mevion S250i Hyperscan system (Mevion Medical Systems, Littleton, MA, USA). We developed a new 4D robust evaluation approach (4DRobAvg; aim 2). The 28 scenario doses were computed on each individual 4DCT phase. For each scenario, the dose distributions on the individual phases were deformed to the reference phase and combined to a weighted sum, resulting in 28 weighted sum scenario dose distributions. From these 28 scenario doses, VWmin/max doses were computed. This new 4D robust evaluation was compared to two simpler 4D evaluation strategies: re‐computing the nominal plan on each individual 4DCT phase (4DNom) and computing the robust VWmin/max doses on each individual phase (4DRobInd). The treatment planning and dose evaluation strategies were evaluated for 16 lung cancer patients with tumor movement of 4–26 mm. Results The ratio of the ITV and CTV volumes increased linearly with the tumor amplitude, with an average ratio of 1.4. Despite large ITV volumes, a clinically acceptable plan fulfilling all target and organ at risk (OAR) constraints was feasible for all patients. The 4DNom and 4DRobInd evaluation strategies were found to under‐ or overestimate the dosimetric effect of the tumor movement, respectively. 4DRobInd showed target underdosage for five patients, not observed in the robust evaluation on the avgCT or in 4DRobAvg. The accuracy of dose deformation used in 4DRobAvg was quantified and found acceptable, with differences for the dose‐volume parameters below 1 Gy in most cases. Conclusion The proposed ITV‐based planning strategy on the avgCT was found to be a clinically feasible approach with adequate tumor coverage and no OAR overdosage even for large tumor movement. The new proposed 4D robust evaluation, 4DRobAvg, was shown to give an easily interpretable understanding of the effect of respiratory motion dose distribution, and to give an accurate estimate of the dose delivered in the different breathing phases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vicki Trier Taasti
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Djoya Hattu
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Femke Vaassen
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Richard Canters
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Marije Velders
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Jolein Mannens
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Judith van Loon
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Ilaria Rinaldi
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Mirko Unipan
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Wouter van Elmpt
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Ohnishi K, Ishikawa H, Nakazawa K, Shiozawa T, Mori Y, Nakamura M, Okumura T, Sekine I, Hizawa N, Sakurai H. Long-term outcomes of high-dose (74 GyE) proton beam therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for stage III nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Thorac Cancer 2021; 12:1320-1327. [PMID: 33675285 PMCID: PMC8088926 DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.13896] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2020] [Revised: 02/03/2021] [Accepted: 02/03/2021] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To evaluate the long-term outcomes of high-dose (74 GyE) proton beam therapy (PBT) with concurrent chemotherapy for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS Between July 2007 and March 2018, 45 patients with stage III NSCLC were treated with passive-scattering PBT of 74 GyE and concurrent chemotherapy. Among the 45 patients, the median age was 62 years (range 39-79 years) and 32 patients were men. The clinical stages were stage IIIA in 14 patients and stage IIIB in 31 patients. Thirty-six patients received chemotherapy consisting of cisplatin and vinorelbine. RESULTS The median follow-up time was 42.1 months (range 6.4-127.0 months) for all patients and 63.5 months (range 9.4-127.0 months) for the 12 survivors. The 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 63.7% and 38.8%, respectively, and the median overall survival was 49.1 months. Over the follow-up period, disease recurrence was observed in 32 (71%) patients. The 3- and 5-year progression-free survival rates were 22.2% and 17.7%, respectively, with a median progression-free survival of 13.1 months. In-field control improved survival and the in-field control rate was better in patients with T0-3 tumors (p = 0.023) and stage IIIA/IIIB-N3 disease (p = 0.030). Dosimetric parameters of the heart and lung were not associated with survival. No grade 4 or 5 acute or late non-hematologic toxicities were observed. CONCLUSIONS Passive-scattering PBT of 74 GyE with chemotherapy showed favorable survival and a low incidence of severe adverse events in patients with stage III NSCLC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kayoko Ohnishi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.,Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, International University of Health and Welfare, Narita, Japan
| | - Hitoshi Ishikawa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.,QST Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| | - Kensuke Nakazawa
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Toshihiro Shiozawa
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Yutaro Mori
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Masatoshi Nakamura
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Toshiyuki Okumura
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Ikuo Sekine
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Nobuyuki Hizawa
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Hideyuki Sakurai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Czerska K, Emert F, Kopec R, Langen K, McClelland JR, Meijers A, Miyamoto N, Riboldi M, Shimizu S, Terunuma T, Zou W, Knopf A, Rucinski A. Clinical practice vs. state-of-the-art research and future visions: Report on the 4D treatment planning workshop for particle therapy - Edition 2018 and 2019. Phys Med 2021; 82:54-63. [PMID: 33588228 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.12.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2020] [Revised: 12/09/2020] [Accepted: 12/16/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
The 4D Treatment Planning Workshop for Particle Therapy, a workshop dedicated to the treatment of moving targets with scanned particle beams, started in 2009 and since then has been organized annually. The mission of the workshop is to create an informal ground for clinical medical physicists, medical physics researchers and medical doctors interested in the development of the 4D technology, protocols and their translation into clinical practice. The 10th and 11th editions of the workshop took place in Sapporo, Japan in 2018 and Krakow, Poland in 2019, respectively. This review report from the Sapporo and Krakow workshops is structured in two parts, according to the workshop programs. The first part comprises clinicians and physicists review of the status of 4D clinical implementations. Corresponding talks were given by speakers from five centers around the world: Maastro Clinic (The Netherlands), University Medical Center Groningen (The Netherlands), MD Anderson Cancer Center (United States), University of Pennsylvania (United States) and The Proton Beam Therapy Center of Hokkaido University Hospital (Japan). The second part is dedicated to novelties in 4D research, i.e. motion modelling, artificial intelligence and new technologies which are currently being investigated in the radiotherapy field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katarzyna Czerska
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, PL-31342 Krakow, Poland.
| | - Frank Emert
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland
| | - Renata Kopec
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, PL-31342 Krakow, Poland
| | - Katja Langen
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Jamie R McClelland
- Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Arturs Meijers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Naoki Miyamoto
- Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan; Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - Marco Riboldi
- Department of Medical Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany
| | - Shinichi Shimizu
- Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan; Department of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - Toshiyuki Terunuma
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Japan; Proton Medical Research Center, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Japan
| | - Wei Zou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Antje Knopf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Antoni Rucinski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, PL-31342 Krakow, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Analytical modeling of depth-dose degradation in heterogeneous lung tissue for intensity-modulated proton therapy planning. PHYSICS & IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY 2021; 14:32-38. [PMID: 33458311 PMCID: PMC7807882 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2020.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2020] [Revised: 05/02/2020] [Accepted: 05/07/2020] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
Background and purpose Proton therapy may be promising for treating non-small-cell lung cancer due to lower doses to the lung and heart, as compared to photon therapy. A reported challenge is degradation, i.e., a smoothing of the depth-dose distribution due to heterogeneous lung tissue. For pencil beams, this causes a distal falloff widening and a peak-to-plateau ratio decrease, not considered in clinical treatment planning systems. Materials and methods We present a degradation model implemented into an analytical dose calculation, fully integrated into a treatment planning workflow. Degradation effects were investigated on target dose, distal dose falloffs, and mean lung dose for ten patient cases with varying anatomical characteristics. Results For patients with pronounced range straggling (in our study large tumors, or lesions close to the mediastinum), degradation effects were restricted to a maximum decrease in target coverage (D 95 of the planning target volume) of 1.4%. The median broadening of the distal 80-20% dose falloffs was 0.5 mm at the maximum. For small target volumes deep inside lung tissue, however, the target underdose increased considerably by up to 26%. The mean lung dose was not negatively affected by degradation in any of the investigated cases. Conclusion For most cases, dose degradation due to heterogeneous lung tissue did not yield critical organ at risk overdosing or overall target underdosing. However, for small and deep-seated tumors which can only be reached by penetrating lung tissue, we have seen substantial local underdose, which deserves further investigation, also considering other prevalent sources of uncertainty.
Collapse
|
16
|
Nordsmark M, Offersen BV. The risk of radiation-associated heart disease comes from many factors; the chain is as strong as the weakest link. Radiother Oncol 2020; 152:101-102. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.05.052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2020] [Accepted: 05/28/2020] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
|
17
|
Borderías Villarroel E, Geets X, Sterpin E. Online adaptive dose restoration in intensity modulated proton therapy of lung cancer to account for inter-fractional density changes. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2020; 15:30-37. [PMID: 33458323 PMCID: PMC7807540 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2020.06.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2020] [Revised: 06/23/2020] [Accepted: 06/26/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In proton therapy, inter-fractional density changes can severely compromise the effective delivery of the planned dose. Such dose distortion effects can be accounted for by treatment plan adaptation, that requires considerable automation for widespread implementation in clinics. In this study, the clinical benefit of an automatic online adaptive strategy called dose restoration (DR) was investigated. Our objective was to assess to what extent DR could replace the need for a comprehensive offline adaptive strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS The fully automatic and robust DR workflow was evaluated in a cohort of 14 lung IMPT patients that had a planning-CT and two repeated 4D-CTs (rCT1,rCT2). Initial plans were generated using 4D-robust optimization (including breathing-motion, setup and range errors). DR relied on isodose contours generated from the initial dose and associated patient specific weighted objectives to mimic this initial dose in repeated-CTs. These isodose contours, with their corresponding objectives, were used during re-optimization to compensate proton range distortions disregarding re-contouring. Robustness evaluations were performed for the initial, not-adapted and restored (adapted) plans. RESULTS The resulting DVH-bands showed overall improvement in DVH metrics and robustness levels for restored plans, with respect to not-adapted plans. According to CTV coverage criteria (D95%>95%Dprescription) in not-adapted plans, 35% (5/14) of the cases needed offline adaptation. After DR, Median(D95%) was increased by 1.1 [IQR,0.4] Gy and only one patient out of 14 (7%) still needed offline adaptation because of important anatomical changes. CONCLUSIONS DR has the potential to improve CTV coverage and reduce offline adaptation rate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Xavier Geets
- UCLouvain, Molecular Imaging-Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Brussels, Belgium
- Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Department of Radiation Oncology, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Edmond Sterpin
- UCLouvain, Molecular Imaging-Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Brussels, Belgium
- KU Leuven, Department of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Teoh S, Fiorini F, George B, Vallis KA, Van den Heuvel F. Is an analytical dose engine sufficient for intensity modulated proton therapy in lung cancer? Br J Radiol 2020; 93:20190583. [PMID: 31696729 PMCID: PMC7066954 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190583] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2019] [Revised: 11/02/2019] [Accepted: 11/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To identify a subgroup of lung cancer plans where the analytical dose calculation (ADC) algorithm may be clinically acceptable compared to Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation in intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). METHODS Robust-optimised IMPT plans were generated for 20 patients to a dose of 70 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) in 35 fractions in Raystation. For each case, four plans were generated: three with ADC optimisation using the pencil beam (PB) algorithm followed by a final dose calculation with the following algorithms: PB (PB-PB), MC (PB-MC) and MC normalised to prescription dose (PB-MC scaled). A fourth plan was generated where MC optimisation and final dose calculation was performed (MC-MC). Dose comparison and γ analysis (PB-PB vs PB-MC) at two dose thresholds were performed: 20% (D20) and 99% (D99) with PB-PB plans as reference. RESULTS Overestimation of the dose to 99% and mean dose of the clinical target volume was observed in all PB-MC compared to PB-PB plans (median: 3.7 Gy(RBE) (5%) (range: 2.3 to 6.9 Gy(RBE)) and 1.8 Gy(RBE) (3%) (0.5 to 4.6 Gy(RBE))). PB-MC scaled plans resulted in significantly higher CTVD2 compared to PB-PB (median difference: -4 Gy(RBE) (-6%) (-5.3 to -2.4 Gy(RBE)), p ≤ .001). The overall median γ pass rates (3%-3 mm) at D20 and D99 were 93.2% (range:62.2-97.5%) and 71.3 (15.4-92.0%). On multivariate analysis, presence of mediastinal disease and absence of range shifters were significantly associated with high γ pass rates. Median D20 and D99 pass rates with these predictors were 96.0% (95.3-97.5%) and 85.4% (75.1-92.0%). MC-MC achieved similar target coverage and doses to OAR compared to PB-PB plans. CONCLUSION In the presence of mediastinal involvement and absence of range shifters Raystation ADC may be clinically acceptable in lung IMPT. Otherwise, MC algorithm would be recommended to ensure accuracy of treatment plans. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Although MC algorithm is more accurate compared to ADC in lung IMPT, ADC may be clinically acceptable where there is mediastinal involvement and absence of range shifters.
Collapse
|
19
|
|