This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of combining helical tomotherapy (HT) and intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in treating patients with nasopharynx cancer (NPC). From January 2016 to March 2018, 98 patients received definitive radiation therapy (RT) with concurrent chemotherapy (CCRT). Using simultaneous integrated boost and adaptive re‐plan, 3 different dose levels were prescribed: 68.4 Gy in 30 parts to gross tumor volume (GTV), 60 Gy in 30 parts to high‐risk clinical target volume (CTV), and 36 Gy in 18 parts to low‐risk CTV. In all patients, the initial 18 fractions were delivered by HT, and, after rival plan evaluation on the adaptive re‐plan, the later 12 fractions were delivered either by HT in 63 patients (64.3%, HT only) or IMPT in 35 patients (35.7%, HT/IMPT combination), respectively. Propensity‐score matching was conducted to control differences in patient characteristics. In all patients, grade ≥ 2 mucositis (69.8% vs 45.7%, P = .019) and grade ≥ 2 analgesic usage (54% vs 37.1%, P = .110) were found to be less frequent in HT/IMPT group. In matched patients, grade ≥ 2 mucositis were still less frequent numerically in HT/IMPT group (62.9% vs 45.7%, P = .150). In univariate analysis, stage IV disease and larger GTV volume were associated with increased grade ≥ 2 mucositis. There was no significant factor in multivariate analysis. With the median 14 month follow‐up, locoregional and distant failures occurred in 9 (9.2%) and 12 (12.2%) patients without difference by RT modality. In conclusion, comparable early oncologic outcomes with more favorable acute toxicity profiles were achievable by HT/IMPT combination in treating NPC patients.

PurposeThe delivery quality assurance (DQA) of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans is a prerequisite for ensuring patient treatments. This work investigated the clinical usefulness of a new DQA system, Dosimetry Check™(DC), on TomoTherapy®‐based helical IMRT plans.MethodsThe DQA was performed for 15 different TomoTherapy®‐based clinical treatment plans. In Tomotherapy® machines, the couch position was set to a height of 400 mm and the treatment plans were delivered using QA‐Treatment mode. For each treatment plan, the plan data and measured beam fluence were transferred to a DC‐installed computer. Then, DC reconstructed the three‐dimensional (3D) dose distribution to the CT images of the patient. The reconstructed dose distribution was compared with that of the original plan in terms of absolute dose, two‐dimensional (2D) planes and 3D volume. The DQA results were compared with those performed by a conventional method using the cheese phantom with ion chamber and radiochromic film.ResultsFor 14 out of the 15 treatment plans, the absolute dose difference between the measurement and calculation was less than 3% and the gamma pass rate with the 3%/3 mm gamma evaluation criteria was greater than 95% for both DQA methods. The P‐value calculated using Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was 0.256, which implies no statistically significance in determining the absolute dose difference between the two methods. For one treatment plan generated using the 5.0 cm field width, the absolute dose difference was greater than 3% and the gamma pass rate was less than 95% with DC, while the DQA result with the cheese phantom method passed our TomoTherapy® DQA tolerance.ConclusionWe have clinically implemented DC for the DQA of TomoTherapy®‐based helical IMRT treatment plans. DC carried out the accurate DQA results as performed with the conventional cheese phantom method. This new DQA system provided more information in verifying the dose delivery to patients, while simplifying the DQA process.

Purpose: To report the early clinical outcomes of combining intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in comparison with IMRT alone in treating oropharynx cancer (OPC) patients. Materials and Methods: The medical records of 148 OPC patients who underwent definitive radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent systemic therapy, from January 2016 till December 2019 at Samsung Medical Center, were retrospectively reviewed. During the 5.5 weeks’ RT course, the initial 16 (or 18) fractions were delivered by IMRT in all patients, and the subsequent 12 (or 10) fractions were either by IMRT in 81 patients (IMRT only) or by IMPT in 67 (IMRT/IMPT combination), respectively, based on comparison of adaptive re-plan profiles and availability of equipment. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was done on 76 patients (38 from each group) for comparative analyses. Results: With the median follow-up of 24.7 months, there was no significant difference in overall survival and progression free survival between groups, both before and after PSM. Before PSM, the IMRT/IMPT combination group experienced grade ≥ 3 acute toxicities less frequently: mucositis in 37.0% and 13.4% (p < 0.001); and analgesic quantification algorithm (AQA) in 37.0% and 19.4% (p = 0.019), respectively. The same trends were observed after PSM: mucositis in 39.5% and 15.8% (p = 0.021); and AQA in 47.4% and 21.1% (p = 0.016), respectively. In multivariate logistic regression, grade ≥ 3 mucositis was significantly less frequent in the IMRT/IMPT combination group, both before and after PSM (p = 0.027 and 0.024, respectively). AQA score ≥ 3 was also less frequent in the IMRT/IMPT combination group, both before and after PSM (p = 0.085 and 0.018, respectively). Conclusions: In treating the OPC patients, with comparable early oncologic outcomes, more favorable acute toxicity profiles were achieved following IMRT/IMPT combination than IMRT alone.