Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Adaptive Planning for Patients with Oropharyngeal Cancer.

PURPOSE: The authors aimed to illustrate the potential dose differences to clinical target volumes (CTVs) and organs-at-risk (OARs) volumes after proton adaptive treatment planning was used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of 10 patients with oropharyngeal cancer were retrospectively reviewed. Each patient's treatment plan was generated by using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Verification computed tomography (CT) scan was performed during the fourth week of treatment. Deformable image registrations were performed between the 2 CT image sets, and the CTVs and major OARs were transferred to the verification CT images to generate the adaptive plan. We compared the accumulated doses to CTVs and OARs between the original and adaptive plans, as well as between the adaptive and verification plans to simulate doses that would have been delivered if the adaptive plans were not used. RESULTS: Body contours were different on planning and week-4 verification CTs. Mean volumes of all CTVs were reduced by 4% to 8% (P ≤ .04), and the volumes of left and right parotid glands also decreased (by 11% to 12%, P ≤ .004). Brainstem and oral cavity volumes did not significantly differ (all P ≥ .14). All mean doses to the CTV were decreased for up to 7% (P ≤ .04), whereas mean doses to the right parotid and oral cavity increased from a range of 5% to 8% (P ≤ .03), respectively. CONCLUSION: Verification and adaptive planning should be recommended during the course of proton therapy for patients with head and neck cancer to ensure adequate dose deliveries to the planned CTVs, while safe doses to OARs can be respected.

Toward a model-based patient selection strategy for proton therapy: External validation of photon-derived normal tissue complication probability models in a head and neck proton therapy cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To externally validate head and neck cancer (HNC) photon-derived normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models in patients treated with proton beam therapy (PBT). METHODS: This prospective cohort consisted of HNC patients treated with PBT at a single institution. NTCP models were selected based on the availability of data for validation and evaluated by using the leave-one-out cross-validated area under the curve (AUC) for the receiver operating characteristics curve. RESULTS: 192 patients were included. The most prevalent tumor site was oropharynx (n=86, 45%), followed by sinonasal (n=28), nasopharyngeal (n=27) or parotid (n=27) tumors. Apart from the prediction of acute mucositis (reduction of AUC of 0.17), the models overall performed well. The validation (PBT) AUC and the published AUC were respectively 0.90 versus 0.88 for feeding tube 6months PBT; 0.70 versus 0.80 for physician-rated dysphagia 6months after PBT; 0.70 versus 0.68 for dry mouth 6months after PBT; and 0.73 versus 0.85 for hypothyroidism 12months after PBT. CONCLUSION: Although a drop in NTCP model performance was expected for PBT patients, the models showed robustness and remained valid. Further work is warranted, but these results support the validity of the model-based approach for selecting treatment for patients with HNC.

Spot-scanning beam proton therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy for ipsilateral head and neck malignancies: a treatment planning comparison.

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.

Rationale for and preliminary results of proton beam therapy for mediastinal lymphoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential of three-dimensional proton beam therapy (3D-PBT) for reducing doses to normal structures in patients with mediastinal lymphomas compared with conventional photon radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We treated 10 consecutive patients with mediastinal masses from lymphomas with 3D-PBT between July 2007 and February 2009 to 30.6-50.4 cobalt-Gray equivalents (CGE). Of those patients, 7 had primary refractory or recurrent disease, and 8 had Hodgkin lymphoma. Dosimetric endpoints were compared with those from conventional RT plans. RESULTS: PBT delivered lower mean doses to the lung (6.2 vs. 9.5 Gy), esophagus (9.5 vs. 22.3 Gy), and heart (8.8 vs. 17.7 Gy) but not the breasts (5.9 vs. 6.1 Gy) than did conventional RT. Percentages of lung, esophagus, heart, and coronary artery (particularly the left anterior descending artery) volumes receiving radiation were consistently lower in the 3D-PBT plans over a wide range of radiation doses. Of the 7 patients who had residual disease on positron emission tomography before PBT, 6 (86%) showed a complete metabolic response. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mediastinal lymphomas, 3D-PBT produced significantly lower doses to the lung, esophagus, heart, and coronary arteries than did the current conventional RT. These lower doses would be expected to reduce the risk of late toxicities in these major organs.