Advertisement

Multifield Optimization Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Tumors: A Translation to Practice

      Background

      We report the first clinical experience and toxicity of multifield optimization (MFO) intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for patients with head and neck tumors.

      Methods and Materials

      Fifteen consecutive patients with head and neck cancer underwent MFO-IMPT with active scanning beam proton therapy. Patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) had comprehensive treatment extending from the base of the skull to the clavicle. The doses for chemoradiation therapy and radiation therapy alone were 70 Gy and 66 Gy, respectively. The robustness of each treatment plan was also analyzed to evaluate sensitivity to uncertainties associated with variations in patient setup and the effect of uncertainties with proton beam range in patients. Proton beam energies during treatment ranged from 72.5 to 221.8 MeV. Spot sizes varied depending on the beam energy and depth of the target, and the scanning nozzle delivered the spot scanning treatment “spot by spot” and “layer by layer.”

      Results

      Ten patients presented with SCC and 5 with adenoid cystic carcinoma. All 15 patients were able to complete treatment with MFO-IMPT, with no need for treatment breaks and no hospitalizations. There were no treatment-related deaths, and with a median follow-up time of 28 months (range, 20-35 months), the overall clinical complete response rate was 93.3% (95% confidence interval, 68.1%-99.8%). Xerostomia occurred in all 15 patients as follows: grade 1 in 10 patients, grade 2 in 4 patients, and grade 3 in 1 patient. Mucositis within the planning target volumes was seen during the treatment of all patients: grade 1 in 1 patient, grade 2 in 8 patients, and grade 3 in 6 patients. No patient experienced grade 2 or higher anterior oral mucositis.

      Conclusions

      To our knowledge, this is the first clinical report of MFO-IMPT for head and neck tumors. Early clinical outcomes are encouraging and warrant further investigation of proton therapy in prospective clinical trials.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      ASTRO Member Login
      ASTRO Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Use your society credentials to access all journal content and features.
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Purchase one-time access:

      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp. Accessed January 22, 2012.

        • Eisbruch A.
        • Harris J.
        • Garden A.S.
        • et al.
        Multi-institutional trial of accelerated hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy for early-stage oropharyngeal cancer (RTOG 00-22).
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 76: 1333-1338
        • Chao K.S.
        • Deasy J.O.
        • Markman J.
        • et al.
        A prospective study of salivary function sparing in patients with head-and-neck cancers receiving intensity-modulated or three-dimensional radiation therapy: Initial results.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001; 49: 907-916
        • Dirix P.
        • Vanstraelen B.
        • Jorissen M.
        • et al.
        Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for sinonasal cancer: Improved outcome compared to conventional radiotherapy.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 78: 998-1004
        • Rosenthal D.I.
        • Chambers M.S.
        • Fuller C.D.
        • et al.
        Beam path toxicities to non-target structures during intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 72: 747-755
        • Purdy J.A.
        Dose to normal tissues outside the radiation therapy patient's treated volume: A review of different radiation therapy techniques.
        Health Phys. 2008; 95: 666-676
        • Lomax A.J.
        • Goitein M.
        • Adams J.
        Intensity modulation in radiotherapy: Photons versus protons in the paranasal sinus.
        Radiother Oncol. 2003; 66: 11-18
        • Sahoo N.
        • Zhu X.R.
        • Arjomandy B.
        • et al.
        A procedure for calculation of monitor units for passively scattered proton radiotherapy beams.
        Med Phys. 2008; 35: 5089-5097
        • Zhu X.R.
        • Poenisch F.
        • Song X.
        • et al.
        Patient-specific quality assurance for prostate cancer patients receiving spot scanning proton therapy using single-field uniform dose.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 81: 552-559
        • Steneker M.
        • Lomax A.
        • Schneider U.
        Intensity modulated photon and proton therapy for the treatment of head and neck tumors.
        Radiother Oncol. 2006; 80: 263-267
        • Palm A.
        • Johansson K.A.
        A review of the impact of photon and proton external beam radiotherapy treatment modalities on the dose distribution in field and out-of-field: Implications for the long-term morbidity of cancer survivors.
        Acta Oncol. 2007; 46: 462-473
        • van de Water T.A.
        • Bijl H.P.
        • Schilstra C.
        The potential benefit of radiotherapy with protons in head and neck cancer with respect to normal tissue sparing: A systematic review of literature.
        Oncologist. 2011; 16: 366-377
        • Cozzi L.
        • Fogliata A.
        • Lomax A.
        • et al.
        A treatment planning comparison of 3D conformal therapy, intensity modulated photon therapy and proton therapy for treatment of advanced head and neck tumours.
        Radiother Oncol. 2001; 61: 287-297
        • Kandula S.
        • Zhu X.
        • Garden A.S.
        • et al.
        Spot-scanning beam proton therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy for ipsilateral head and neck malignancies: A treatment planning comparison.
        Med Dosim. 2013; 38: 390-394
        • Mock U.
        • Georg D.
        • Bogner J.
        • et al.
        Treatment planning comparison of conventional, 3D conformal, and intensity-modulated photon (IMRT) and proton therapy for paranasal sinus carcinoma.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004; 58: 147-154
        • Widesott L.
        • Pierelli A.
        • Fiorino C.
        • et al.
        Intensity-modulated proton therapy versus helical tomotherapy in nasopharynx cancer: Planning comparison and NTCP evaluation.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 72: 589-596
        • Simone 2nd, C.B.
        • Ly D.
        • Dan T.D.
        • et al.
        Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, adaptive radiotherapy, proton radiotherapy, and adaptive proton radiotherapy for treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer.
        Radiother Oncol. 2011; 101: 376-382
        • Liu W.
        • Zhang X.
        • Li Y.
        • et al.
        Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy.
        Med Phys. 2012; 39: 1079-1091
        • Park P.C.
        • Zhu X.R.
        • Lee A.K.
        • et al.
        A beam-specific planning target volume (PTV) design for proton therapy to account for setup and range uncertainties.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 82: e329-e336
        • Lomax A.J.
        Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 1: The potential effects of calculational uncertainties.
        Phys Med Biol. 2008; 53: 1027-1042
        • Lomax A.J.
        • Pedroni E.
        • Rutz H.
        • et al.
        The clinical potential of intensity modulated proton therapy.
        Z Med Phys. 2004; 14: 147-152
        • Moyers M.F.
        • Miller D.W.
        • Bush D.A.
        • et al.
        Methodologies and tools for proton beam design for lung tumors.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001; 49: 1429-1438
        • Quan E.M.
        • Liu W.
        • Wu R.
        • et al.
        Preliminary evaluation of multifield and single-field optimization for the treatment planning of spot-scanning proton therapy of head and neck cancer.
        Med Phys. 2013; 40: 081709
        • Smith A.
        • Gillin M.
        • Bues M.
        • et al.
        The M. D. Anderson proton therapy system.
        Med Phys. 2009; 36: 4068-4083
        • Gillin M.T.
        • Sahoo N.
        • Bues M.
        • et al.
        Commissioning of the discrete spot scanning proton beam delivery system at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Proton Therapy Center, Houston.
        Med Phys. 2010; 37: 154-163
        • Liu W.
        • Frank S.J.
        • Li X.
        • et al.
        PTV-based IMPT optimization incorporating planning risk volumes vs. robust optimization.
        Med Phys. 2013; 40: 021709
        • Liu W.
        • Frank S.J.
        • Li X.
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy planning for head and neck cancers.
        Med Phys. 2013; 40: 051711
        • Cao W.
        • Lim G.J.
        • Lee A.
        • et al.
        Uncertainty incorporated beam angle optimization for IMPT treatment planning.
        Med Phys. 2012; 39: 5248-5256
        • Ramaekers B.
        • Grutters J.P.
        • Pijls-Johannesma M.
        • et al.
        Protons in head and neck cancer: Bridging the gap of evidence.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 85: 1282-1288

      Comments

      Commenting Guidelines

      To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:

      • We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
      • This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
      • We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
      • Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
      • Comments are not peer-reviewed.