Proton therapy for maxillary sinus carcinoma.
ABSTRACT To compare the dose-volume data of three-dimensional conformal proton therapy (3DCPT) versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for a paranasal sinus malignancy.
3DCPT and IMRT plans were created for a T4N0 maxillary sinus carcinoma.
The target volume dose distributions were comparable for 3DCPT and IMRT. The mean and integral doses for all normal tissues were lower for 3DCPT. The maximum doses for both plans to the ipsilateral optic nerve/retina/lens, temporal lobe, pituitary, and brain exceeded tolerance doses. The contralateral parotid, lacrimal gland, and lens were avoided with 3DCPT. Neither 3DCPT nor IMRT exceeded the maximal tolerated dose for the brainstem, optic chiasm, contralateral temporal lobe, parotid, or lacrimal gland.
Both 3DCPT and IMRT sufficiently covered the target volume(s). Although 3DCPT reduced the mean and integral dose to all of the normal tissues, both 3DCPT and IMRT irradiated the ipsilateral optic structures beyond acceptable tolerance doses.
- SourceAvailable from: George E. Laramore[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) is the standard of care in the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) based on level 1 evidence. Technical advances in radiotherapy have revolutionized the treatment of HNSCC, with the most tangible gain being a reduction in long term morbidity. However, these benefits come with a serious and sobering price. Today, there is a greater chance of missing the target/tumor due to uncertainties in target volume definition by the clinician that is demanded by the highly conformal planning process involved with IMRT. Unless this is urgently addressed, our patients would be better served with the historically practiced non conformal radiotherapy, than IMRT which promises lesser morbidity. Image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) ensures the level of set up accuracy warranted to deliver a highly conformal treatment plan and should be utilized with IMRT, where feasible. Proton therapy has a theoretical physical advantage over photon therapy due to a lack of "exit dose". However, clinical data supporting the routine use of this technology for HNSCC are currently sparse. The purpose of this article is to review the literature, discuss the salient issues and make recommendations that address the gaps in knowledge.Journal of Oncology 01/2012; 2012:597467.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Radiation therapy for head and neck malignancies can have side effects that impede quality of life. Theoretically, proton therapy can reduce treatment-related morbidity by minimizing the dose to critical normal tissues. We evaluated the feasibility of spot-scanning proton therapy for head and neck malignancies and compared dosimetry between those plans and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans. Plans from 5 patients who had undergone IMRT for primary tumors of the head and neck were used for planning proton therapy. Both sets of plans were prepared using computed tomography (CT) scans with the goals of achieving 100% of the prescribed dose to the clinical target volume (CTV) and 95% to the planning TV (PTV) while maximizing conformity to the PTV. Dose-volume histograms were generated and compared, as were conformity indexes (CIs) to the PTVs and mean doses to the organs at risk (OARs). Both modalities in all cases achieved 100% of the dose to the CTV and 95% to the PTV. Mean PTV CIs were comparable (0.371 IMRT, 0.374 protons, p = 0.953). Mean doses were significantly lower in the proton plans to the contralateral submandibular (638.7 cGy IMRT, 4.3 cGy protons, p = 0.002) and parotid (533.3 cGy IMRT, 48.5 cGy protons, p = 0.003) glands; oral cavity (1760.4 cGy IMRT, 458.9 cGy protons, p = 0.003); spinal cord (2112.4 cGy IMRT, 249.2 cGy protons, p = 0.002); and brainstem (1553.52 cGy IMRT, 166.2 cGy protons, p = 0.005). Proton plans also produced lower maximum doses to the spinal cord (3692.1 cGy IMRT, 2014.8 cGy protons, p = 0.034) and brainstem (3412.1 cGy IMRT, 1387.6 cGy protons, p = 0.005). Normal tissue V10, V30, and V50 values were also significantly lower in the proton plans. We conclude that spot-scanning proton therapy can significantly reduce the integral dose to head and neck critical structures. Prospective studies are underway to determine if this reduced dose translates to improved quality of life.Medical dosimetry: official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists 08/2013; · 1.26 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Proton beam radiation has been used for cancer treatment since the 1950s, but recent increasing interest in this form of therapy and the construction of hospital-based and clinic-based facilities for its delivery have greatly increased both the number of patients and the variety of tumors being treated with proton therapy. The mass of proton particles and their unique physical properties (ie, the Bragg peak) allow proton therapy to spare normal tissues distal to the tumor target from incidental irradiation. Initial observations show that proton therapy is particularly useful for treating tumors in challenging locations close to nontarget critical structures. Specifically, improvements in local control outcomes for patients with chordoma, chonodrosarcoma, and tumors in the sinonasal regions have been reported in series using proton. Improved local control and survival outcomes for patients with cancer of the head and neck region have also been seen with the advent of improvements in better imaging and multimodality therapy comprising surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. However, aggressive local therapy in the proximity of critical normal structures to tumors in the head and neck region may produce debilitating early and late toxic effects. Great interest has been expressed in evaluating whether proton therapy can improve outcomes, especially early and late toxicity, when used in the treatment of head and neck malignancies. This review summarizes the progress made to date in addressing this question.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 06/2014; 89(2):292–302. · 4.59 Impact Factor