Treatment planning comparison for head and neck cancer between photon, proton, and combined proton-photon therapy - from a fixed beam line to an arc.

Amstutz, Florian; Krcek, Reinhardt; Bachtiary, Barbara; Weber, Damien C; Lomax, Antony J; Unkelbach, Jan; Zhang, Ye (2024). Treatment planning comparison for head and neck cancer between photon, proton, and combined proton-photon therapy - from a fixed beam line to an arc. Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 190(109973), p. 109973. Elsevier Scientific Publ. Ireland 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109973

Preview

Text 1-s2.0-S016781402389867X-main.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (5MB) | Preview

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This study investigates whether combined proton-photon therapy (CPPT) improves treatment plan quality compared to single-modality intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. Different proton beam arrangements for CPPT and IMPT are compared, which could be of specific interest concerning potential future upright-positioned treatments. Furthermore, it is evaluated if CPPT benefits remain under inter-fractional anatomical changes for HNC treatments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Five HNC patients with a planning CT and multiple (4-7) repeated CTs were studied. CPPT with simultaneously optimized photon and proton fluence, single-modality IMPT, and IMRT treatment plans were optimized on the planning CT and then recalculated and reoptimized on each repeated CT. For CPPT and IMPT, plans with different degrees of freedom for the proton beams were optimized. Fixed horizontal proton beam line (FHB), gantry-like, and arc-like plans were compared.

RESULTS

The target coverage for CPPT without adaptation is insufficient (average V95%=88.4%), while adapted plans can recover the initial treatment plan quality for target (average V95%=95.5%) and organs-at-risk. CPPT with increased proton beam flexibility increases plan quality and reduces normal tissue complication probability of Xerostomia and Dysphagia. On average, Xerostomia NTCP reductions compared to IMRT are -2.7%/-3.4%/-5.0% for CPPT FHB/CPPT Gantry/CPPT Arc. The differences for IMPT FHB/IMPT Gantry/IMPT Arc are +0.8%/-0.9%/-4.3%.

CONCLUSION

CPPT for HNC needs adaptive treatments. Increasing proton beam flexibility in CPPT, either by using a gantry or an upright-positioned patient, improves treatment plan quality. However, the photon component is substantially reduced, therefore, the balance between improved plan quality and costs must be further determined.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

11 since deposited on 06 Nov 2023
11 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item