Dosimetric feasibility of hypofractionated proton radiotherapy for neoadjuvant pancreatic cancer treatment

PURPOSE: To evaluate tumor and normal tissue dosimetry of a 5 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE) x 5 fraction proton radiotherapy schedule, before initiating a clinical trial of neoadjuvant, short-course proton radiotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The first 9 pancreatic cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant intensity-modulated radiotherapy (1.8 Gy x 28) at the Massachusetts General Hospital had treatment plans generated using a 5 CGE x 5 fraction proton regimen. To facilitate dosimetric comparisons, clinical target volumes and normal tissue volumes were held constant. Plans were optimized for target volume coverage and normal tissue sparing. RESULTS: Hypofractionated proton and conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans both provided acceptable target volume coverage and dose homogeneity. Improved dose conformality provided by the hypofractionated proton regimen resulted in significant sparing of kidneys, liver, and small bowel, evidenced by significant reductions in the mean doses, expressed as percentage prescribed dose, to these structures. Kidney and liver sparing was most evident in low-dose regions (< or =20% prescribed dose for both kidneys and < or =60% prescribed dose for liver). Improvements in small-bowel dosimetry were observed in high- and low-dose regions. Mean stomach and duodenum doses, expressed as percentage prescribed dose, were similar for the two techniques. CONCLUSIONS: A proton radiotherapy schedule consisting of 5 fractions of 5 CGE as part of neoadjuvant therapy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas seems dosimetrically feasible, providing excellent target volume coverage, dose homogeneity, and normal tissue sparing. Hypofractionated proton radiotherapy in this setting merits Phase I clinical trial investigation.     

A dosimetric analysis of dose escalation using two intensity-modulated radiation therapy techniques in locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma

PURPOSE: To perform an analysis of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), sequential boost intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRTs), and integrated boost IMRT (IMRTi) for dose escalation in unresectable pancreatic carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Computed tomography images from 15 patients were used. Treatment plans were generated using 3D-CRT, IMRTs, and IMRTi for dose levels of 54, 59.4, and 64.8 Gy. Plans were analyzed for target coverage, doses to liver, kidneys, small bowel, and spinal cord. RESULTS: Three-dimensional-CRT exceeded tolerance to small bowel in 1 of 15 (6.67%) patients at 54 Gy, and 4 of 15 (26.7%) patients at 59.4 and 64.8 Gy. 3D-CRT exceeded spinal cord tolerance in 1 of 15 patients (6.67%) at 59.4 Gy and liver constraints in 1 of 15 patients (6.67%) at 64.8 Gy; no IMRT plans exceeded tissue tolerance. Both IMRT techniques reduced the percentage of total kidney volume receiving 20 Gy (V20), the percentage of small bowel receiving 45 Gy (V45), and the percentage of liver receiving 35 Gy (V35). IMRTi appeared superior to IMRTs in reducing the total kidney V20 (p < 0.0001), right kidney V20 (p < 0.0001), and small bowel V45 (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Sequential boost IMRT and IMRTi improved the ability to achieve normal tissue dose goals compared with 3D-CRT. IMRTi allowed dose escalation to 64.8 Gy with acceptable normal tissue doses and superior dosimetry compared with 3D-CRT and IMRTs.     

Proton therapy for pancreatic cancer

Radiotherapy is commonly offered to patients with pancreatic malignancies although its ultimate utility is compromised since the pancreas is surrounded by exquisitely radiosensitive normal tissues, such as the duodenum, stomach, jejunum, liver, and kidneys. Proton radiotherapy can be used to create dose distributions that conform to tumor targets with significant normal tissue sparing. Because of this, protons appear to represent a superior modality for radiotherapy delivery to patients with unresectable tumors and those receiving postoperative radiotherapy. A particularly exciting opportunity for protons also exists for patients with resectable and marginally resectable disease. In this paper, we review the current literature on proton therapy for pancreatic cancer and discuss scenarios wherein the improvement in the therapeutic index with protons may have the potential to change the management paradigm for this malignancy.     

Four-dimensional computed tomography-based treatment planning for intensity-modulated radiation therapy and proton therapy for distal esophageal cancer

PURPOSE: To compare three-dimensional (3D) and four-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT)-based treatment plans for proton therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for esophageal cancer in terms of doses to the lung, heart, and spinal cord and variations in target coverage and normal tissue sparing. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The IMRT and proton plans for 15 patients with distal esophageal cancer were designed from the 3D average CT scans and then recalculated on 10 4D CT data sets. Dosimetric data were compared for tumor coverage and normal tissue sparing. RESULTS: Compared with IMRT, median lung volumes exposed to 5, 10, and 20 Gy and mean lung dose were reduced by 35.6%, 20.5%, 5.8%, and 5.1 Gy for a two-beam proton plan and by 17.4%, 8.4%, 5%, and 2.9 Gy for a three-beam proton plan. The greater lung sparing in the two-beam proton plan was achieved at the expense of less conformity to the target (conformity index [CI], 1.99) and greater irradiation of the heart (heart-V40, 41.8%) compared with the IMRT plan(CI, 1.55, heart-V40, 35.7%) or the three-beam proton plan (CI, 1.46, heart-V40, 27.7%). Target coverage differed by more than 2% between the 3D and 4D plans for patients with substantial diaphragm motion in the three-beam proton and IMRT plans. The difference in spinal cord maximum dose between 3D and 4D plans could exceed 5 Gy for the proton plans partly owing to variations in stomach gas filling. CONCLUSIONS: Proton therapy provided significantly better sparing of lung than did IMRT. Diaphragm motion and stomach gas-filling must be considered in evaluating target coverage and cord doses.     

Dose escalation in the radiotherapy of non-small-cell lung cancer with aperture-based intensity modulation and photon beam energy optimization for non-preselected patients

Purpose

To verify the potential of aperture-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy (AB-IMRT) to realize dose escalation plans for non-preselected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, using photon beam energy optimization.

Methods and materials

Seven cases of NSCLC were retrospectively studied. Clinical reference plans were made at 60 Gy by an experienced dosimetrist. Dose escalation was applied to PTV2, a subvolume within the main PTV1. Escalation plans were optimized by considering beam angles (table and gantry), energy (6 and 23 MV) and weights, for an increasing dose to the PTV2, starting from 66 Gy and keeping 30 fractions.

Results

In five cases, doses over 78 Gy could be achieved before exceeding organs at risk (OARs) standard tolerance. Peripheral overdosages, as well as lung and spinal cord tolerance doses, limited escalation. Means ± SD V_95% parameters were (97.3 ± 0.9)% for PTV1s and (96.7 ± 2.2)% for PTV2s. Doses to OARs were also maintained at acceptable levels. Optimized plans made use of both low- and high-energy beams and had a similar number of monitor units compared to the 60 Gy clinical plans.

Conclusions

The AB-IMRT system can successfully realize dose escalation for a sizeable number of cases. Plans produced contained few large segments, and are applicable to a wide range of tumor volumes and locations.     

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

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 lowered 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.     

Systemic treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer belongs to the most malignant gastrointestinal cancers and, in its advanced stage, remains a deadly disease for nearly all affected patients. Treatment of metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas not only involves chemotherapy and targeted therapy, but also requires attention to accompanying comorbidities as well as frequently intensive supportive treatment and psychosocial support. Gemcitabine-based combinations with fluoropyrimidines and platin analogs have essentially failed to provide a substantial prolongation of survival and may constitute a treatment option only in patients with a good performance status. Among targeted therapies, only the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib has shown activity which is marginal in the overall population, but clinically relevant in patients developing skin rash. New avenues of polychemotherapy are presently explored since the gemcitabine-free FOLFIRINOX-regimen (infusional 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus irinotecan and oxaliplatin) was shown to be markedly superior to gemcitabine in selected good-performance patients. Pancreatic cancer is notably characterized as a hypovascular tumor rich in desmoplastic stromal tissue. An innovative approach to treatment therefore focuses on peritumoral fibroblasts and aims to induce a depletion of the stroma either by inhibition of the hedgehog pathway or by targeting SPARC (secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine) via application of albumin-bound paclitaxel.     

Secondary radiation doses of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and proton beam therapy in patients with lung and liver cancer

Purpose

To compare the secondary radiation doses following intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) in patients with lung and liver cancer.

Methods and materials

IMRT and PBT were planned for three lung cancer and three liver cancer patients. The treatment beams were delivered to phantoms and the corresponding secondary doses during irradiation were measured at various points 20-50 cm from the beam isocenter using ion chamber and CR-39 detectors for IMRT and PBT, respectively.

Results

The secondary dose per Gy (i.e., a treatment dose of 1 Gy) from PBT for lung and liver cancer, measured 20-50 cm from the isocenter, ranged from 0.17 to 0.086 mGy. The secondary dose per Gy from IMRT, however, ranged between 5.8 and 1.0 mGy, indicating that PBT is associated with a smaller dose of secondary radiation than IMRT. The internal neutron dose per Gy from PBT for lung and liver cancer, 20-50 cm from the isocenter, ranged from 0.03 to 0.008 mGy.

Conclusions

The secondary dose from PBT is less than or compatible to the secondary dose from conventional IMRT. The internal neutron dose generated by the interaction between protons and body material is generally much less than the external neutron dose from the treatment head.     

Dose-escalated proton therapy with elective nodal irradiation and concomitant chemotherapy for unresectable,borderline resectable,or medically inoperable pancreatic cancer: a phase II trial

BackgroundTo report outcomes of a phase II single-institution trial of dose-escalated proton radiotherapy with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) and concomitant chemotherapy for patients with unresectable, borderline resectable, or medically inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.MethodsPatients received 40.5 GyRBE in 18 fractions to the gross disease and elective nodal volumes followed by 22.5 GyRBE as a 10-fraction boost to the gross disease for a cumulative dose of 63 GyRBE over 28 fractions. Oral capecitabine (1,000 mg taken orally twice daily) was given on radiation treatment days. The primary objective of this study was to improve the proportion surviving to at least 1 year from the historical rate of 50% to 75%. Secondary objectives included assessing gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and weight loss during treatment, and evaluating the safety of subsequent surgical resection. This single-institution study was closed to accrual early after the opening of the multicenter PAN009-18 trial by the Proton Collaborative Group (PCG), which follows a similar protocol.ResultsAt enrollment, 10 (67%) patients had unresectable disease, 3 (20%) had borderline-resectable disease, and 2 (13%) refused surgery. All 15 patients successfully completed radiation therapy as prescribed. With regard to toxicity, a single patient experienced grade 3 nausea requiring cessation of capecitabine, which ultimately resolved by treatment completion. The median percentage weight loss during treatment was −3.0% (range, −9.6% to +12.0%). Two (13%) initially borderline patients ultimately underwent R0 resection: their total operating room times were 267 and 410 minutes, and blood loss was 700 and 400 mL, respectively. Neither patient experienced intraoperative or postoperative complications. Both were discharged on postoperative day 6. The median follow-up was 0.93 years (range, 0.21 to 2.14 years). The 1-year overall survival (OS) rate was 47%. Three enrolled patients are currently alive: 2 with no evidence of disease and 1 with stable disease.ConclusionsThe primary objective of 1-year OS of 75% was not reached. Proton therapy was well-tolerated. Patients undergoing surgery did not experience operative or perioperative complications, suggesting that patients with borderline resectable or even resectable disease may benefit from neoadjuvant proton therapy. The PCG will test this premise as patients accrue to the multicenter PAN009-18 trial.Trial Registration{"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02598349","term_id":"NCT02598349"}}NCT02598349.     

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with IMRT in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer

PurposeNeoadjuvant chemoradiation is an alternative to the surgery-first approach for resectable pancreatic cancer (PDA) and represents the standard of care for borderline resectable (BLR).Materials and methodsAll patients with resectable and BLR PDA treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation using IMRT between 1/2009 and 11/2011 were reviewed. Patients were treated to a customized CTV which included the primary mass and regional vessels.ResultsNeoadjuvant chemoradiation was completed in 69 patients (39 BLR and 30 resectable). Induction chemotherapy was used in 32 (82%) of the 39 patients with BLR disease prior to chemoXRT. All resectable patients were treated with chemoXRT alone. Following neoadjuvant treatment, 48 (70%) of the 69 patients underwent successful pancreatic resection with 47 (98%) being margin negative (RO). In 30 of the BLR patients who had arterial abutment or SMV occlusion, 19 (63%) were surgically resected and all had RO resections. The cumulative incidence of local failure at 1 and 2 years was 2% (95% CI 0–6%) and 9% (95% CI 0.6–17%) respectively. The median overall survival for all patients, patients undergoing resection, and patients without resection were 20, 26 and 11 months respectively. Sixteen (23%) of the 69 patients are alive without disease with a median follow-up of 47 months (36–60).ConclusionNeoadjuvant chemoXRT can facilitate a margin negative resection in patients with localized PCa.     

Comparison of second cancer risk due to out-of-field doses from 6-MV IMRT and proton therapy based on 6 pediatric patient treatment plans

Background and purpose

This study compared 6-MV IMRT and proton therapy in terms of organ specific second cancer lifetime attributable risks (LARs) caused by scattered and secondary out-of-field radiation.

Materials and methods

Based on simulated organ doses, excess relative and excess absolute risk models were applied to assess organ-specific LARs. Two treatment sites (cranium and central spine) were considered involving six treatment volumes and six patient ages (9-month, 4-year, 8-year, 11-year, 14-year, and adult).

Results

The LARs for thyroid cancer from a 6 cm diameter field treating a brain lesion in a 4-year old patient were estimated to be 1.1% and 0.3% in passive proton therapy and IMRT, respectively. However, estimated LARs for bladder cancer, more than 25 cm from the field edge for the same patient and treatment field, were estimated to be 0.2% and 0.02% from IMRT and proton therapy, respectively. Risks for proton beam scanning was found to be an order of magnitude smaller compared to passive proton therapy.

Conclusion

In terms of out-of-field risks, IMRT offers advantage close to the primary field and an increasing advantage for passive proton therapy is noticed with increasing distance to the field. Scanning proton beam therapy shows the lowest risks.     

The impact of dose escalation on secondary cancer risk after radiotherapy of prostate cancer

PURPOSE: To estimate secondary cancer risk due to dose escalation in patients treated for prostatic carcinoma with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), and spot-scanned proton RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The organ equivalent dose (OED) concept with a linear-exponential, a plateau, and a linear dose-response curve was applied to dose distributions of 23 patients who received RT of prostate cancer. Conformal RT was used in 7 patients, 8 patients received IMRT with 6- and 15-MV photons, and 8 patients were treated with spot-scanned protons. We applied target doses ranging from 70 Gy to 100 Gy. Cancer risk was estimated as a function of target dose and tumor control probability. RESULTS: At a 100-Gy target dose the secondary cancer risk relative to the 3D treatment plan at 70 Gy was +18.4% (15.0% for a plateau model, 22.3% for a linear model) for the 6-MV IMRT plan, +25.3% (17.0%, 14.1%) for the 15-MV IMRT plan, and -40.7% (-41.3%, -40.0%) for the spot-scanned protons. The increasing risk of developing a radiation-associated malignancy after RT with increasing dose was balanced by the enhanced cure rates at a larger dose. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer risk after dose escalation for prostate RT is expected to be equal to or lower than for conventional 3D treatment at 70 Gy, independent of treatment modality or dose-response model. Spot-scanned protons are the treatment of choice for dose escalation because this therapy can halve the risk of secondary cancers.     

Evaluation of normal tissue exposure in patients receiving radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer based on RTOG 0848

Background

Pancreatic cancer is a highly aggressive malignancy. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is utilized in many cases to improve locoregional control; however, toxicities associated with radiation can be significant given the location of the pancreas. RTOG 0848 seeks to evaluate chemoradiation using either intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or 3D conformal photon radiotherapy (3DCRT) modalities as an adjuvant treatment. The purpose of this study is to quantify the dosimetric changes seen when using IMRT or 3D CRT photon modalities, as well as proton radiotherapy, in patients receiving CRT for cancer of the pancreas treated per RTOG 0848 guidelines.

Materials

Ten patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma treated between 2010 and 2013 were evaluated in this study. All patients were simulated with contrast-enhanced CT imaging. Separate treatment plans using IMRT and 3DCRT as well as proton radiotherapy were created for each patient. All planning volumes were created per RTOG 0848 protocol. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were calculated and analyzed in order to compare plans between the three modalities. The organs at risk (OAR) evaluated in this study are the kidneys, liver, small bowel, and spinal cord.

Results

There was no difference between the IMRT and 3DCRT plans in dose delivered to the kidneys, liver, or bowel. The proton radiotherapy plans were found to deliver lower mean total kidney doses, mean liver doses, and liver D_1/3 compared to the IMRT plans. The proton plans also gave less mean liver dose, liver D_1/3, bowel V₁₅, and bowel V₅₀ in comparison to the 3DCRT.

Conclusions

For patients receiving radiotherapy per ongoing RTOG 0848 for pancreatic cancer, there was no significant difference in normal tissue sparing between IMRT and 3DCRT treatment planning. Therefore, the choice between the two modalities should not be a confounding factor in this study. The proton plans also demonstrated improved OAR sparing compared to both IMRT and 3DCRT treatment plans.     

Comparison of radiation treatment delivery for pancreatic cancer: Linac intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus helical tomotherapy

Introduction: Intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has been shown to reduce dose to organs at risk (OAR) while adequately treating tumour volume. This study quantitatively compares the dosimetric differences from step‐and‐shoot IMRT compared with helical tomotherapy (HT) for pancreatic head cancer. Methods: Twelve consecutive patients with non‐metastatic, stage T3 or T4, unresectable pancreatic head cancer were planned for step‐and‐shoot IMRT as well as HT. Radiotherapy was planned to deliver 45.9 Gy to the clinical target volume in 30 fractions with an integrated boost to 54 Gy to the gross tumour volume (planning target volume 5400 including a 1‐cm set‐up margin). The uniformity index (UI) and conformity index (CI) were used to compare the quality of target coverage, while the quality index (QI) compared the dosimetric performance for OAR. Results: Both methods were effective at covering the tumour with no significant difference in UI or CI. However, HT dosimetry exhibited superior sparing of OAR with significantly less stomach (mean QI_StomV30 = 0.84, P = 0.006) and small bowel dosing (mean small bowel QI_SBV30 = 0.84, P = 0.005). HT reduced dose to the kidney receiving the highest dose but the overall volume of kidney receiving 18 Gy was not significantly different between the two systems, indicating that HT spread the dose more uniformly through the kidneys. Conclusions: Target coverage is equivalent between the two systems; however, HT shows significantly better sparing of the stomach and small bowel. The decreased dose to OAR with HT is likely to improve the therapeutic ratio in the radiotherapy of pancreatic head cancers.     

Capecitabine and radiation therapy preceded and followed by combination chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the tolerance and toxicity of radiation therapy (RT) and capecitabine in patients with advanced, unresectable pancreatic carcinoma. To control micrometastatic disease, combination chemotherapy (gemcitabine and cisplatin) before and after combined modality therapy (CMT) was planned. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer were eligible. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 35 mg/m2 were administered on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle for two cycles. RT was then given to a dose of 50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions. Patients were treated with capecitabine 1330 mg/m2 daily during RT. After CMT, two additional cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin completed the treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were treated. Eighteen patients completed CMT. One patient was removed from study during CMT for toxicity issues. Treatment delays and dose reductions were common during the final two cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin as a result of myelosuppression. Median survival was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.6, 13.7) for all 23 patients and 12.8 months (95% CI = 8.2, 18.9) for 18 patients without metastasis. CONCLUSION: Combined modality therapy with RT and capecitabine was well tolerated. Chemotherapy after CMT was difficult to complete owing to cumulative myelosuppression. Survival, response, and toxicity were comparable to infusional 5-fluorouracil and RT.