Helical tomotherapy and intensity modulated proton therapy in the treatment of early stage prostate cancer: A treatment planning comparison

Schwarz, Marco; Pierelli, A.; Fiorino, Claudio; Fellin, F.; Cattaneo, Giovanni Mauro; Cozzarini, C.; Muzio, N. Di; Calandrino, R.; Widesott, L.

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2010.10.027

Cited by 34 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Particle radiotherapy has also been shown in preliminary reports and modeling studies to improve tumor dose distribution and decrease normal tissue toxicity in the treatment of many cancers [28–30] SCCHN compared with photon therapy [31–36]. Cozzi et al performed a treatment planning comparison of mixed photon-electron, 3D conformal photon, IMRT, and proton therapy (passively scattered and spot scanned) for patients with advanced SCCHN.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, adaptive radiotherapy, proton radiotherapy, and adaptive proton radiotherapy for treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer

Simone

Dan

et al. 2011

Radiotherapy and Oncology

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Purpose Various radiotherapy planning methods for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) have been proposed to decrease normal tissue toxicity. We compare IMRT, adaptive IMRT, proton therapy (IMPT), and adaptive IMPT for SCCHN. Materials and Methods Initial and re-simulation CT images from 10 consecutive patients with SCCHN were used to quantify dosimetric differences between photon and proton therapy. Contouring was performed on both CTs, and plans (n=40 plans) and dose volume histograms were generated. Results The mean GTV volume decreased 53.4% with re-simulation. All plans provided comparable PTV coverage. Compared with IMRT, adaptive IMRT significantly reduced the maximum dose to the mandible (p=0.020) and mean doses to the contralateral parotid gland (p=0.049) and larynx (p=0.049). Compared with IMRT and adaptive IMRT, IMPT significantly lower the maximum doses to the spinal cord (p<0.002 for both) and brainstem (p<0.002 for both) and mean doses to the larynx (p<0.002 for both) and ipsilateral (p=0.004 IMRT, p=0.050 adaptive) and contralateral (p<0.002 IMRT, p=0.010 adaptive) parotid glands. Adaptive IMPT significantly reduced doses to all critical structures compared with IMRT and adaptive IMRT and several critical structures compared with non-adaptive IMPT. Conclusions Although adaptive IMRT reduced dose to several normal structures compared with standard IMRT, non-adaptive proton therapy had a more favorable dosimetric profile than IMRT or adaptive IMRT and may obviate the need for adaptive planning. Protons allowed significant sparing of the spinal cord, parotid glands, larynx, and brainstem and should be considered for SCCHN to decrease normal tissue toxicity while still providing optimal tumor coverage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, adaptive radiotherapy, proton radiotherapy, and adaptive proton radiotherapy for treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer

Simone

Dan

et al. 2011

Radiotherapy and Oncology

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using spot scanning proton beam technology to deliver IMPT confers certain dosimetric advantages over IMRT and passively scattered proton therapy [ 4,5,11,12 ]. IMPT improves proximal target dose conformity and enhances targeting of complex geometric targets compared with passively scattered proton therapy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multifield optimization intensity-modulated proton therapy (MFO-IMPT) for prostate cancer: Robustness analysis through simulation of rotational and translational alignment errors

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the dosimetric consequences of rotational and translational alignment errors in patients receiving intensity-modulated proton therapy with multi-field optimization (MFO-IMPT) for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Ten control patients with localized prostate cancer underwent treatment planning for MFO-IMPT. Rotational and translation errors were simulated along each of three axes: anterior–posterior (A-P), superior–inferior (S-I), and left–right. Results Clinical target volume (CTV) coverage remained high with all alignment errors simulated. Rotational errors did not result in significant rectum or bladder dose perturbations. Translational errors resulted in larger dose perturbations to the bladder and rectum. Perturbations in rectum and bladder doses were minimal for rotational errors and larger for translational errors. Rectum V45 and V70 increased most with A-P misalignment, whereas bladder V45 and V70 changed most with S-I misalignment. The bladder and rectum V45 and V70 remained acceptable even with extreme alignment errors. Even with S-I and A-P translational errors of up to 5 mm, the dosimetric profile of MFO-IMPT remained favorable. Conclusions MFO-IMPT for localized prostate cancer results in robust coverage of the CTV without clinically meaningful dose perturbations to normal tissue despite extreme rotational and translational alignment errors.

show abstract

“…Dosimetry studies have shown a 30-50% dose reduction to critical organs when using proton beam compared with the photon beam, even when advanced radiotherapy techniques are applied [94][95][96][97][98][99][100]. Reducing the mean dose of the rectum or its wall, the bladder and small intestine, (and regrettably increasing the dose to femoral bone heads) is observed in cases where the proton beam is used as booster in IMRT [101].…”

Section: Prostate Cancer (Pc)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Proton radiotherapy for treating the most common carcinomas

Sas-Korczyńska

Jakubowicz²,

Reinfuss³

2017

Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A literature review is presented on proton radiotherapy when used for treating the most common carcinoma types such as cancer of the lung, breast and prostate. This is based on analytic parameters of dosimetry and clinical outcomes (efficacy and toxicity), along with studies on cost-effectiveness as compared to those achieved by conventional photon radiotherapy. NOWOTWORY J Oncol 2016; 66, 5: 396-402

show abstract

Helical tomotherapy and intensity modulated proton therapy in the treatment of early stage prostate cancer: A treatment planning comparison

Cited by 34 publications

References 36 publications

Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, adaptive radiotherapy, proton radiotherapy, and adaptive proton radiotherapy for treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer

Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, adaptive radiotherapy, proton radiotherapy, and adaptive proton radiotherapy for treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer

Multifield optimization intensity-modulated proton therapy (MFO-IMPT) for prostate cancer: Robustness analysis through simulation of rotational and translational alignment errors

Proton radiotherapy for treating the most common carcinomas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About