Volumetric modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated proton therapy in neoadjuvant irradiation of locally advanced oesophageal cancer

Comparative Evaluation of Proton Therapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Brachial Plexus Sparing in the Comprehensive Reirradiation of High-Risk Recurrent Breast Cancer

Purpose

Recurrent or new primary breast cancer requiring comprehensive regional nodal irradiation after prior radiation therapy (RT) to the supraclavicular area and upper axilla is challenging due to cumulative brachial plexus (BP) dose tolerance. We assessed BP dose sparing achieved with pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBS-PT) and photon volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

Methods and Materials

In an institutional review board-approved planning study, all patients with ipsilateral recurrent breast cancer treated with PBS-PT re-RT (PBT1) with at least partial BP overlap from prior photon RT were identified. Comparative VMAT plans (XRT1) using matched BP dose constraints were developed. A second pair of proton (PBT2) and VMAT (XRT2) plans using standardized target volumes were created, applying uniform prescription dose of 50.4 per 1.8 Gy and a maximum BP constraint <25 Gy. Incidence of brachial plexopathy was also assessed.

Results

Ten consecutive patients were identified. Median time between RT courses was 48 months (15-276). Median first, second, and cumulative RT doses were 50.4 Gy (range, 42.6-60.0), 50.4 Gy relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) (45.0-64.4), and 102.4 Gy (RBE) (95.0-120.0), respectively. Median follow-up was 15 months (5-33) and 18 months for living patients (11-33) Mean BP max was 37.5 Gy (RBE) for PBT1 and 36.9 Gy for XRT1. Target volume coverage of V85% (volume receiving 85% of prescription dose), V90%, and V95% were numerically lower for XRT1 versus PBT1. Similarly, axilla I-III and supraclavicular area coverage were significantly higher for PBT2 than XRT2 at dose levels of V55%, V65%, V75%, V85%, and V95%. Only axilla I V55% did not reach significance (P = .06) favoring PBS-PT. Two patients with high cumulative BPmax (95.2 Gy [RBE], 101.6 Gy [RBE]) developed brachial plexopathy symptoms with ulnar nerve distribution neuropathy without pain or weakness (1 of 2 had symptom resolution after 6 months without intervention).

Conclusions

PBS-PT improved BP sparing and target volume coverage versus VMAT. For patients requiring comprehensive re-RT for high-risk, nonmetastatic breast cancer recurrence with BP overlap and reasonable expectation for prolonged life expectancy, PBT may be the preferred treatment modality.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy using proton beams can reduce cardiopulmonary morbidity in esophageal cancer patients: a systematic review

This systematic review was performed to investigate the superiority of proton beam therapy (PBT) to photon-based radiotherapy (RT) in treating esophageal cancer patients, especially those with poor cardiopulmonary function. The MEDLINE (PubMed) and ICHUSHI (Japana Centra Revuo Medicina) databases were searched from January 2000 to August 2020 for studies evaluating one end point at least as follows; overall survival, progression-free survival, grade ≥ 3 cardiopulmonary toxicities, dose-volume histograms, or lymphopenia or absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs) in esophageal cancer patients treated with PBT or photon-based RT. Of 286 selected studies, 23 including 1 randomized control study, 2 propensity matched analyses, and 20 cohort studies were eligible for qualitative review. Overall survival and progression-free survival were better after PBT than after photon-based RT, but the difference was significant in only one of seven studies. The rate of grade 3 cardiopulmonary toxicities was lower after PBT (0-13%) than after photon-based RT (7.1-30.3%). Dose-volume histograms revealed better results for PBT than photon-based RT. Three of four reports evaluating the ALC demonstrated a significantly higher ALC after PBT than after photon-based RT. Our review found that PBT resulted in a favorable trend in the survival rate and had an excellent dose distribution, contributing to reduced cardiopulmonary toxicities and a maintained number of lymphocytes. These results warrant novel prospective trials to validate the clinical evidence.

Efficacy and Safety in Proton Therapy and Photon Therapy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Importance

Radiotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Proton therapy has unique physical properties and higher relative biological effectiveness. However, whether proton therapy has greater benefit than photon therapy is still unclear.

Objective

To evaluate whether proton was associated with better efficacy and safety outcomes, including dosimetric, prognosis, and toxic effects outcomes, compared with photon therapy and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of proton therapy singly.

Data Sources

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SinoMed, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases was conducted for articles published through November 25, 2021, and updated to March 25, 2023.

Study Selection

For the comparison of proton and photon therapy, studies including dosimetric, prognosis, and associated toxic effects outcomes were included. The separate evaluation of proton therapy evaluated the same metrics.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data on study design, individual characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. If I2 was greater than 50%, the random-effects model was selected. This meta-analysis is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were organs at risk (OARs) dosimetric outcomes, prognosis (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], and objective response rate [ORR]), and radiation-related toxic effects.

Results

A total of 45 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For dosimetric analysis, proton therapy was associated with significantly reduced OARs dose. Meta-analysis showed that photon therapy was associated with poor OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61; I2 = 11%), but no difference in PFS was observed. Subgroup analysis showed worse OS (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.78; I2 = 34%) and PFS (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; I2 = 7%) in the radical therapy group with photon therapy. The pathological complete response rate was similar between groups. Proton therapy was associated with significantly decreased grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis and pericardial effusion, and grade 4 or higher lymphocytopenia. Single-rate analysis of proton therapy found 89% OS and 65% PFS at 1 year, 71% OS and 56% PFS at 2 years, 63% OS and 48% PFS at 3 years, and 56% OS and 42% PFS at 5 years. The incidence of grade 2 or higher radiation esophagitis was 50%, grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis was 2%, grade 2 or higher pleural effusion was 4%, grade 2 or higher pericardial effusion was 3%, grade 3 or higher radiation esophagitis was 8%, and grade 4 or higher lymphocytopenia was 17%.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this meta-analysis, proton therapy was associated with reduced OARs doses and toxic effects and improved prognosis compared with photon therapy for esophageal cancer, but caution is warranted. In the future, these findings should be further validated in randomized clinical trials.

Dosimetric comparison of pencil beam scanning proton therapy with or without multi-leaf collimator versus volumetric-modulated arc therapy for treatment of malignant glioma

This study aimed to examine the dosimetric effect of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) with a multi-leaf collimator (MLC) in treating malignant glioma. We compared the dose distribution of IMPT with or without MLC (IMPT_MLC+ or IMPT_MLC-, respectively) using pencil beam scanning and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) plans for 16 patients with malignant gliomas. High- and low-risk target volumes were assessed using D_2%, V_90%, V_95%, homogeneity index (HI), and conformity index (CI). Organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated using the average dose (D_mean) and D_2%. Furthermore, the dose to the normal brain was evaluated using from V_5Gy to V_40Gy at 5 Gy intervals. There were no significant differences among all techniques regarding V_90%, V_95%, and CI for the targets. HI and D_2% for IMPT_MLC+ and IMPT_MLC- were significantly superior to those for VMAT (p < 0.01). The D_mean and D_2% of all OARs for IMPT_MLC+ were equivalent or superior to those of other techniques. Regarding the normal brain, there was no significant difference in V_40Gy among all techniques whereas V_5Gy to V_35Gy in IMPT_MLC+ were significantly smaller than those in IMPT_MLC- (with differences ranging from 0.45% to 4.80%, p < 0.05) and VMAT (with differences ranging from 6.85% to 57.94%, p < 0.01). IMPT_MLC+ could reduce the dose to OARs, while maintaining target coverage compared to IMPT_MLC- and VMAT in treating malignant glioma.

Assessment of IMPT versus VMAT plans using different uncertainty scenarios for prostate cancer

Background

To assess the impact of systematic setup and range uncertainties for robustly optimized (RO) intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in patients with localized prostate cancer.

Methods

Twenty-six localized prostate patients previously treated with VMAT (CTV to PTV expansion of 3-5 mm) were re-planned with RO-IMPT with 3 mm and 5 mm geometrical uncertainties coupled with 3% range uncertainties. Robust evaluations (RE) accounting for the geometrical uncertainties of 3 and 5 mm were evaluated for the IMPT and VMAT plans. Clinical target volume (CTV), anorectum, and bladder dose metrics were analyzed between the nominal plans and their uncertainty perturbations.

Results

With geometric uncertainties of 5 mm and accounting for potential inter-fractional perturbations, RO-IMPT provided statistically significant (p < 0.05) sparing at intermediate doses (V_4000cGy) to the anorectum and bladder and high dose sparring (V_8000cGy) to the bladder compared to VMAT. Decreasing the RO and RE parameters to 3 mm improved IMPT sparing over VMAT at all OAR dose levels investigated while maintaining equivalent coverage to the CTV.

Conclusions

For localized prostate treatments, if geometric uncertainties can be maintained at or below 3 mm, RO-IMPT provides clear dosimetric advantages in anorectum and bladder sparing compared to VMAT. This advantage remains even under uncertainty scenarios. As geometric uncertainties increase to 5 mm, RO-IMPT still provides dosimetric advantages, but to a smaller magnitude.

Proton Therapy in the Management of Luminal Gastrointestinal Cancers: Esophagus, Stomach, and Anorectum

Simple Summary

Radiation treatment plays a major role in the management of luminal gastrointestinal cancers, mainly esophageal and anorectal cancers. There is a growing interest in the application of protons for gastrointestinal cancers, mainly owing to its dosimetric characteristics in decreasing dose to nearby organs at risk. We present here an up-to-date comprehensive review of the dosimetric and clinical literature on the use of proton therapy in the management of luminal gastrointestinal cancers.

Abstract

While the role of proton therapy in gastric cancer is marginal, its role in esophageal and anorectal cancers is expanding. In esophageal cancer, protons are superior in sparing the organs at risk, as shown by multiple dosimetric studies. Literature is conflicting regarding clinical significance, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that protons yield similar or improved oncologic outcomes to photons at a decreased toxicity cost. Similarly, protons have improved sparing of the organs at risk in anorectal cancers, but clinical data is much more limited to date, and toxicity benefits have not yet been shown clinically. Large, randomized trials are currently underway for both disease sites.

Comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy beam configurations for treating thoracic esophageal cancer

•

Dosimetric benefit of proton over x-ray treatment for thoracic esophageal cancer.

•

Reduction of pulmonary and cardiac toxicity by proton therapy.

•

Intensity modulated proton therapy beam configurations designed by tumor location.

Background and purpose

Specific proton-beam configurations are needed to spare organs at risk (OARs), including lungs, heart, and spinal cord, when treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the thoracic region. This study aimed to propose new intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) beam configurations and to demonstrate the benefit of IMPT compared with intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMXT) for treating ESCC.

Material and methods

IMPT plans with three different beam angle configurations were generated on CT datasets of 25 ESCC patients that were treated with IMXT. The IMPT beam designs were two commonly-used beam configurations (anteroposterior and posterior oblique) and a recently proposed beam configuration (anterosuperior with posteroinferior). The target doses were 50–54 Gy(RBE) and 60–64 Gy(RBE) to the low-risk and high-risk target volumes, respectively. Robust optimization was applied for the IMPT plans. The differences in the dose-volume parameters between the IMXT and IMPT plans were compared.

Results

With target coverage comparable to standard IMXT, IMPT had significantly lower mean doses to the OARs. IMPT with an anteroposterior opposing beam generated the lowest lung dose (mean = 7.1 Gy(RBE), V₂₀ = 14.1%) and the anterosuperior with posteroinferior beam resulted in the lowest heart dose (mean = 12.8 Gy(RBE), V₃₀ = 15.7%) and liver dose (mean = 3.9 Gy(RBE), V₃₀ = 5.9%). For the subgroup of patients with an inferior tumor location (PTVs overlapping a part of the contoured heart), the novel beam demonstrated the optimal OARs sparing.

Conclusion

Compared with IMXT, the IMPT plans significantly reduced the radiation dose to the surrounding organs when treating ESCC. IMPT beam configuration selection depends on the tumor location relative to the heart.

Dose-volume comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for cervical esophageal cancer

Proton therapy for cervical esophageal cancer has many issues to be considered, such as the physiological curvature of the spine and the large range change from the neck to the trunk. We clarified the dosimetric characteristics of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for cervical esophageal cancer by comparing with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Ten patients with cervical esophageal cancer were retrospectively planned for VMAT, 2-field IMPT (2F-IMPT), and 3-field IMPT (3F-IMPT). All plans were optimized to reach clinically acceptable levels. For planning target volume (PTV) coverage, 95% of the PTV should be covered by 95% of the prescription dose, unless the spinal cord limit is violated. The organs at risk included the lung, spinal cord, larynx, skin, and whole body. The prescription dose was 60 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in 30 fractions to the PTV. We compared the results according to dose-volume metrics. Significant dose reductions were achieved at lung doses, especially at low dose volumes of 20 Gy RBE or less in IMPT plans compared with VMAT plans (p < 0.05). Although the spinal cord PRV was below the tolerance level, the results were also significantly higher in VMAT plans than in IMPT plans (p < 0.001). Spinal cord PRV D_mean was significantly higher in 3F-IMPT than in 2F-IMPT (p < 0.001). In addition, it was confirmed that the integral whole body dose can be dramatically reduced in IMPT plans compared with VMAT plans. Both of 2F-IMPT and 3F-IMPT could effectively reduce spinal cord dose, as well as low integral whole body dose to a certain extent, while maintaining similar target coverage compared to VMAT. IMPT could be a promising treatment technique for patients with cervical esophageal cancer.

Executive Summary of Clinical and Technical Guidelines for Esophageal Cancer Proton Beam Therapy From the Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group Thoracic and Gastrointestinal Subcommittees

Radiation therapy (RT) is an integral component of potentially curative management of esophageal cancer (EC). However, RT can cause significant acute and late morbidity due to excess radiation exposure to nearby critical organs, especially the heart and lungs. Sparing these organs from both low and high radiation dose has been demonstrated to achieve clinically meaningful reductions in toxicity and may improve long-term survival. Accruing dosimetry and clinical evidence support the consideration of proton beam therapy (PBT) for the management of EC. There are critical treatment planning and delivery uncertainties that should be considered when treating EC with PBT, especially as there may be substantial motion-related interplay effects. The Particle Therapy Co-operative Group Thoracic and Gastrointestinal Subcommittees jointly developed guidelines regarding patient selection, treatment planning, clinical trials, and future directions of PBT for EC.

[The role of proton therapy in esophageal cancer]

Because of the physical properties of proton beam radiation therapy (PT), which allows energy to be deposited at a specific depth with a rapid energy fall-off beyond that depth, PT has several theoretical advantages over photon radiation therapy for esophageal cancer (EC). Protons have the potential to reduce the dose to healthy tissue and to more safely allow treatment of tumors near critical organs, dose escalation, trimodal treatment, and re-irradiation. In recent years, larger multicenter retrospective studies have been published showing excellent survival rates, lower than expected toxicities and even better outcomes with PT than with photon radiotherapy even using IMRT or VMAT techniques. Although PT was associated with reduced toxicities, postoperative complications, and hospital stays compared to photon radiation therapy, these studies all had inherent biases in relation with patient selection for PT. These observations were recently confirmed by a randomized phase II study in locally advanced EC that showed significantly reduced toxicities with protons compared with IMRT. Currently, two randomized phase III trials (NRG-GI006 in the US and PROTECT in Europe) are being conducted to confirm whether protons could become the standard of care in locally advanced and resectable esophageal cancers.

Knowledge-Based Planning for Robustly Optimized Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy of Head and Neck Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

To assess the performance of a proton-specific knowledge-based planning (KBP) model in the creation of robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for treatment of advanced head and neck (HN) cancer patients.

METHODS

Seventy-three patients diagnosed with advanced HN cancer previously treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were selected and replanned with robustly optimized IMPT. A proton-specific KBP model, RapidPlanPT (RPP), was generated using 53 patients (20 unilateral cases and 33 bilateral cases). The remaining 20 patients (10 unilateral and 10 bilateral cases) were used for model validation. The model was validated by comparing the target coverage and organ at risk (OAR) sparing in the RPP-generated IMPT plans with those in the expert plans. To account for the robustness of the plan, all uncertainty scenarios were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

All the RPP plans generated were clinically acceptable. For unilateral cases, RPP plans had higher CTV_primary V100 (1.59% ± 1.24%) but higher homogeneity index (HI) (0.7 ± 0.73) than had the expert plans. In addition, the RPP plans had better ipsilateral cochlea Dmean (-5.76 ± 6.11 Gy), with marginal to no significant difference between RPP plans and expert plans for all other OAR dosimetric indices. For the bilateral cases, the V100 for all clinical target volumes (CTVs) was higher for the RPP plans than for the expert plans, especially the CTV_primary V100 (5.08% ± 3.02%), with no significant difference in the HI. With respect to OAR sparing, RPP plans had a lower spinal cord Dmax (-5.74 ± 5.72 Gy), lower cochlea Dmean (left, -6.05 ± 4.33 Gy; right, -4.84 ± 4.66 Gy), lower left and right parotid V20Gy (left, -6.45% ± 5.32%; right, -6.92% ± 3.45%), and a lower integral dose (-0.19 ± 0.19 Gy). However, RPP plans increased the Dmax in the body outside of CTV (body-CTV) (1.2 ± 1.43 Gy), indicating a slightly higher hotspot produced by the RPP plans.

CONCLUSION

IMPT plans generated by a broad-scope RPP model have a quality that is, at minimum, comparable with, and at times superior to, that of the expert plans. The RPP plans demonstrated a greater robustness for CTV coverage and better sparing for several OARs.

The Promise of Proton Beam Therapy for Oesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Dosimetric and Clinical Outcomes

AIMS

Due to its physical advantages over photon radiotherapy, proton beam therapy (PBT) has the potential to improve outcomes from oesophageal cancer. However, for many tumour sites, high-quality evidence supporting PBT use is limited. We carried out a systematic review of published literature of PBT in oesophageal cancer to ascertain potential benefits of this technology and to gauge the current state-of-the-art. We considered if further evaluation of this technology in oesophageal cancer is desirable.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science using structured search terms was carried out. Inclusion criteria included non-metastatic cancer, full articles and English language studies only. Articles deliberating technical aspects of PBT planning or delivery were excluded to maintain a clinical focus. Studies were divided into two sections: dosimetric and clinical studies; qualitatively synthesised.

RESULTS

In total, 467 records were screened, with 32 included for final qualitative synthesis. This included two prospective studies with the rest based on retrospective data. There was heterogeneity in treatment protocols, including treatment intent (neoadjuvant or definitive), dose, fractionation and chemotherapy used. Compared with photon radiotherapy, PBT seemed to reduce dose to organs at risk, especially lung and heart, although not for all reported parameters. Toxicity outcomes, including postoperative complications, were reduced compared with photon radiotherapy. Survival outcomes were reported to be at least comparable with photon radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of high-quality evidence supporting PBT use in oesophageal cancer. Wide variation in intent and treatment protocols means that the role and 'gold-standard' treatment protocol are yet to be defined. Current literature suggests significant benefit in terms of toxicity reduction, especially in the postoperative period, with comparable survival outcomes. PBT in oesophageal cancer holds significant promise for improving patient outcomes but requires robust systematic evaluation in prospective studies.

Knowledge-based intensity-modulated proton planning for gastroesophageal carcinoma

PURPOSE

To investigate the performance of a narrow-scope knowledge-based RapidPlan (RP) model, for optimisation of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans applied to patients with locally advanced carcinoma in the gastroesophageal junction.

METHODS

A cohort of 60 patients was retrospectively selected; 45 were used to 'train' a dose-volume histogram predictive model; the remaining 15 provided independent validation. The performance of the RP model was benchmarked against manual optimisation. Quantitative assessment was based on several dose-volume metrics.

RESULTS

Manual and RP-optimised IMPT plans resulted dosimetrically similar, and the planning dose-volume objectives were met for all structures. Concerning the validation set, the comparison of the manual vs RP-based plans, respectively, showed for the target (PTV): the homogeneity index was 6.3 ± 2.2 vs 5.9 ± 1.2, and V98% was 89.3 ± 2.9 vs 91.4 ± 2.2% (this was 97.2 ± 1.9 vs 98.8 ± 1.1 for the CTV). Regarding the organs at risk, no significant differences were reported for the combined lungs, the whole heart, the left anterior descending artery, the kidneys, the spleen and the spinal canal. The D_0.1 cm3 for the left ventricle resulted in 40.3 ± 3.4 vs 39.7 ± 4.3 Gy(RBE). The mean dose to the liver was 3.4 ± 1.3 vs 3.6 ± 1.5 Gy(RBE).

CONCLUSION

A narrow-scope knowledge-based RP model was trained and validated for IMPT delivery in locally advanced cancer of the gastroesophageal junction. The results demonstrate that RP can create models for effective IMPT. Furthermore, the equivalence between manual interactive and unattended RP-based optimisation could be displayed. The data also showed a high correlation between predicted and achieved doses in support of the valuable predictive power of the RP method.