Stromberger Carmen, Cozzi Luca, Budach Volker, Fogliata Antonella, Ghadjar Pirus, Wlodarczyk Waldemar, Jamil Basil, Raguse Jan D, Böttcher Arne, Marnitz Simone
Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Cancer Center Milan, Milan, Italy.
Strahlenther Onkol. 2016 Apr;192(4):232-9. doi: 10.1007/s00066-016-0945-4. Epub 2016 Feb 6.
To compare simultaneous integrated boost plans for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), helical tomotherapy (HT), and RapidArc therapy (RA) for patients with head and neck cancer.
A total of 20 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck received definitive chemoradiation with bilateral (n = 14) or unilateral (n = 6) neck irradiation and were planned using IMPT, HT, and RA with 54.4, 60.8, and 70.4 GyE/Gy in 32 fractions. Dose distributions, coverage, conformity, homogeneity to planning target volumes (PTV)s and sparing of organs at risk and normal tissue were compared.
All unilateral and bilateral plans showed excellent PTV coverage and acceptable dose conformity. For unilateral treatment, IMPT delivered substantially lower mean doses to contralateral salivary glands (< 0.001-1.1 Gy) than both rotational techniques did (parotid gland: 6-10 Gy; submandibular gland: 15-20 Gy). Regarding the sparing of classical organs at risk for bilateral treatment, IMPT and HT were similarly excellent and RA was satisfactory.
For unilateral neck irradiation, IMPT may minimize the dry mouth risk in this subgroup but showed no advantage over HT for bilateral neck treatment regarding classical organ-at-risk sparing. All methods satisfied modern standards regarding toxicity and excellent target coverage for unilateral and bilateral treatment of head and neck cancer at the planning level.
比较调强质子治疗(IMPT)、螺旋断层放疗(HT)和容积旋转调强放疗(RA)对头颈部癌患者的同步整合加量计划。
共有20例头颈部鳞状细胞癌患者接受了双侧(n = 14)或单侧(n = 6)颈部照射的根治性放化疗,并采用IMPT、HT和RA进行计划,剂量分别为54.4、60.8和70.4 GyE/Gy,分32次照射。比较了剂量分布、靶区覆盖、适形度、计划靶区(PTV)的均匀性以及危及器官和正常组织的受量情况。
所有单侧和双侧计划均显示出良好的PTV覆盖和可接受的剂量适形度。对于单侧治疗,IMPT对侧唾液腺的平均剂量(< 0.001 - 1.1 Gy)显著低于两种旋转技术(腮腺:6 - 10 Gy;下颌下腺:15 - 20 Gy)。关于双侧治疗中经典危及器官的保护,IMPT和HT同样出色,RA也令人满意。
对于单侧颈部照射,IMPT可能会使该亚组患者口干风险降至最低,但在双侧颈部治疗中,就经典危及器官保护而言,与HT相比并无优势。在计划层面,所有方法在头颈部癌单侧和双侧治疗的毒性及良好靶区覆盖方面均符合现代标准。