ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: One main advantage of proton therapy versus photon therapy is its precise radiation delivery to targets without exit dose, resulting in lower dose to surrounding healthy tissues. This is critical, given the proximity of head and neck tumors to normal structures. However, proton planning requires careful consideration of factors, including air-tissue interface, anatomic uncertainties, surgical artifacts, weight fluctuations, rapid tumor response, and daily variations in setup and anatomy, as these heterogeneities can lead to inaccuracies in targeting and creating unwarranted hotspots to a greater extent than photon radiation. In addition, the elevated relative biological effectiveness at the Bragg peak's distal end can also increase hot spots within and outside the target area. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate for a difference in positron emission tomography (PET) standard uptake value (SUV) after definitive treatment, between intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and intensity modulated photon therapy (IMRT). In addition, we compared the biologic dose between PET areas of high and low uptake within the clinical target volume-primary of patients treated with IMPT. This work is assuming that the greater SUV may potentially result in greater toxicities. For the purposes of this short communication, we are strictly focusing on the SUV and do not have correlation with toxicity outcomes. To accomplish this, we compared the 3- and 6-month posttreatment fluorodeoxyglucose PET scans for 100 matched patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated definitively without surgery using either IMPT (n = 50) or IMRT (n = 50). RESULTS: Our study found a significant difference in biologic dose between the high- and low-uptake regions on 3-month posttreatment scans of IMPT. However, this difference did not translate to a significant difference in PET uptake in the clinical target volume-primary at 3 and 6 months' follow-up between patients who received IMPT versus IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: Studies have proposed that proton's greater relative biological effectiveness at the Bragg peak could lead to tissue inflammation. Our study did not corroborate these findings. This study's conclusion underscores the need for further investigations with ultimate correlation with clinical toxicity outcomes.
ABSTRACT
Importance: Patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC) treated with radiotherapy often experience substantial toxic effects, even with modern techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) has a potential advantage over IMRT due to reduced dose to the surrounding organs at risk; however, data are scarce given the limited availability and use of IMPT. Objective: To compare toxic effects and oncologic outcomes among patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic OPC treated with IMPT vs IMRT with or without chemotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic OPC who received curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT at a single-institution tertiary academic cancer center from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, with follow-up through December 31, 2021. Exposures: IMPT or IMRT with or without chemotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the incidence of acute and chronic (present after ≥6 months) treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and oncologic outcomes, including locoregional recurrence (LRR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Fisher exact tests and χ2 tests were used to evaluate associations between toxic effects and treatment modality (IMPT vs IMRT), and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare LRR, PFS, and OS between the 2 groups. Results: The study included 292 patients with OPC (272 [93%] with human papillomavirus [HPV]-p16-positive tumors); 254 (87%) were men, 38 (13%) were women, and the median age was 64 years (IQR, 58-71 years). Fifty-eight patients (20%) were treated with IMPT, and 234 (80%) were treated with IMRT. Median follow-up was 26 months (IQR, 17-36 months). Most patients (283 [97%]) received a dose to the primary tumor of 70 Gy. Fifty-seven of the patients treated with IMPT (98%) and 215 of those treated with IMRT (92%) had HPV-p16-positive disease. There were no significant differences in 3-year OS (97% IMPT vs 91% IMRT; P = .18), PFS (82% IMPT vs 85% IMRT; P = .62), or LRR (5% IMPT vs 4% IMRT; P = .59). The incidence of acute toxic effects was significantly higher for IMRT compared with IMPT for oral pain of grade 2 or greater (42 [72%] IMPT vs 217 [93%] IMRT; P < .001), xerostomia of grade 2 or greater (12 [21%] IMPT vs 68 [29%] IMRT; P < .001), dysgeusia of grade 2 or greater (16 [28%] IMPT vs 134 [57%] IMRT; P < .001), grade 3 dysphagia (4 [7%] IMPT vs 29 [12%] IMRT; P < .001), mucositis of grade 3 or greater (10 [53%] IMPT vs 13 [70%] IMRT; P = .003), nausea of grade 2 or greater (0 [0%] IMPT vs 18 [8%] IMRT; P = .04), and weight loss of grade 2 or greater (22 [37%] IMPT vs 138 [59%] IMRT; P < .001). There were no significant differences in chronic toxic effects of grade 3 or greater, although there was a significant difference for chronic xerostomia of grade 2 or greater (6 IMPT [11%] vs 22 IMRT [10%]; P < .001). Four patients receiving IMRT (2%) vs 0 receiving IMPT had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for longer than 6 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT for nonmetastatic OPC was associated with a significantly reduced acute toxicity burden compared with IMRT, with few chronic toxic effects and favorable oncologic outcomes, including locoregional recurrence of only 5% at 2 years. Prospective randomized clinical trials comparing these 2 technologies and of patient-reported outcomes are warranted.
