+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Intensity modulated photon and proton therapy for the treatment of head and neck tumors



Intensity modulated photon and proton therapy for the treatment of head and neck tumors



RadioTherapy and Oncology 80(2): 263-267



A comparative treatment planning study has been performed between intensity modulated photon and proton therapy to investigate the ability of both modalities to spare organs at risk in the head and neck region while keeping target dose homogeneous. Additional advantage of reducing the spot size for IMPT was also investigated. The treatment planning comparison was extended by varying the number of fields to study its effect on the performance of each modality. Risks of secondary cancer induction were also calculated for all modalities. Five planning CTs were selected for the study. Four different constraints were set to the organs at risk in order to measure the resulting dose homogeneity in the target volume. Five and nine field plans were made for IMXT and 3, 5 and 9 field plans were made for IMPT, for both spot sizes. Dose homogeneity as a function of the mean parotid dose was visualized using a 'pseudo' Pareto-optimal front approach. Risks of secondary cancer were estimated using the organ equivalent dose model. Critical organs were best spared using 3-field IMPT and, at least for IMPT, little advantage was seen with increasing field numbers. Reducing the spot size does give an advantage. In contrast, there was a significant advantage in going from 5 to 9 fields for IMXT. Secondary cancer risk was lowest for the IMPT plans with reduced spot size, for which normal tissue received the lowest integral dose. Interestingly, although integral dose remained the same, increasing the number of IMPT fields increased the secondary cancer risk, due to the increased volume of tissue irradiated to low dose. IMPT has a better ability to spare organs at risk than IMXT for the same dose homogeneity. It also significantly reduced the estimated risk of secondary cancer induction and the use of small numbers of fields further increased this advantage. Given that target homogeneity and normal tissue sparing were equally good with the 3 field IMPT, there appears to be a clear rationale to deliver small numbers of fields for IMPT.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 012222905

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 16916557

DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2006.07.025


Related references

Regarding "a treatment planning comparison of 3D conformal therapy, intensity modulated photon therapy and proton therapy for treatment of advanced head and neck tumours". RadioTherapy and Oncology 63(2): 231-231, 2002

A treatment planning comparison of 3D conformal therapy, intensity modulated photon therapy and proton therapy for treatment of advanced head and neck tumours. Radiotherapy and Oncology 61(3): 287-297, 2001

Comparing cone-beam CT intensity correction methods for dose recalculation in adaptive intensity-modulated photon and proton therapy for head and neck cancer. Acta Oncologica 54(9): 1651-1657, 2016

PO-0872Impact of interfractional anatomical changes in intensity modulated photon and proton therapy of head & neck cancer. RadioTherapy and Oncology 111: S91-S92, 2014

Multi-scenario based robust intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans can account for set-up errors more effectively in terms of normal tissue sparing than planning target volume (PTV) based intensity-modulated photon plans in the head and neck region. Radiation Oncology 8: 145, 2015

Multifield optimization intensity modulated proton therapy for head and neck tumors: a translation to practice. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 89(4): 846-853, 2014

Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Tumors: Gilding the Lily or Holy Grail?. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 95(1): 37-39, 2016

Increase in Tumor Control and Normal Tissue Complication Probabilities in Advanced Head-and-Neck Cancer for Dose-Escalated Intensity-Modulated Photon and Proton Therapy. Frontiers in Oncology 5: 256, 2015

Integrated beam orientation and scanning-spot optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy for brain and unilateral head and neck tumors. Medical Physics 45(4): 1338-1350, 2018

Spot-scanning beam proton therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy for ipsilateral head and neck malignancies: a treatment planning comparison. Medical Dosimetry 38(4): 390-394, 2014

Comparison of photon volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated proton therapy, and intensity-modulated carbon ion therapy for delivery of hypo-fractionated thoracic radiotherapy. Radiation Oncology 12(1): 132, 2018

Re-irradiation of recurrent head and neck carcinomas: comparison of robust intensity modulated proton therapy treatment plans with helical tomotherapy. Radiation Oncology 8: 93, 2014

Proton beam radiation therapy results in significantly reduced toxicity compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck tumors that require ipsilateral radiation. RadioTherapy and Oncology 118(2): 286-292, 2016

Which technique for radiation is most beneficial for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer? Intensity modulated proton therapy versus intensity modulated photon treatment, helical tomotherapy and volumetric arc therapy for primary radiation - an intraindividual comparison. Radiation Oncology 10: 91, 2016

Unilateral and bilateral neck SIB for head and neck cancer patients : Intensity-modulated proton therapy, tomotherapy, and RapidArc. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 192(4): 232-239, 2016