Romesser Paul B, Cahlon Oren, Scher Eli, Zhou Ying, Berry Sean L, Rybkin Alisa, Sine Kevin M, Tang Shikui, Sherman Eric J, Wong Richard, Lee Nancy Y
Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States; ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, United States.
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Feb;118(2):286-92. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.12.008. Epub 2016 Feb 8.
As proton beam radiation therapy (PBRT) may allow greater normal tissue sparing when compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), we compared the dosimetry and treatment-related toxicities between patients treated to the ipsilateral head and neck with either PBRT or IMRT.
Between 01/2011 and 03/2014, 41 consecutive patients underwent ipsilateral irradiation for major salivary gland cancer or cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The availability of PBRT, during this period, resulted in an immediate shift in practice from IMRT to PBRT, without any change in target delineation. Acute toxicities were assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0.
Twenty-three (56.1%) patients were treated with IMRT and 18 (43.9%) with PBRT. The groups were balanced in terms of baseline, treatment, and target volume characteristics. IMRT plans had a greater median maximum brainstem (29.7 Gy vs. 0.62 Gy (RBE), P < 0.001), maximum spinal cord (36.3 Gy vs. 1.88 Gy (RBE), P < 0.001), mean oral cavity (20.6 Gy vs. 0.94 Gy (RBE), P < 0.001), mean contralateral parotid (1.4 Gy vs. 0.0 Gy (RBE), P<0.001), and mean contralateral submandibular (4.1 Gy vs. 0.0 Gy (RBE), P < 0.001) dose when compared to PBRT plans. PBRT had significantly lower rates of grade 2 or greater acute dysgeusia (5.6% vs. 65.2%, P<0.001), mucositis (16.7% vs. 52.2%, P=0.019), and nausea (11.1% vs. 56.5%, P=0.003).
The unique properties of PBRT allow greater normal tissue sparing without sacrificing target coverage when irradiating the ipsilateral head and neck. This dosimetric advantage seemingly translates into lower rates of acute treatment-related toxicity.
与调强放射治疗(IMRT)相比,质子束放射治疗(PBRT)可能更有利于减少正常组织受照剂量,因此我们比较了接受PBRT或IMRT治疗的同侧头颈部患者的剂量学和治疗相关毒性。
2011年1月至2014年3月期间,41例连续性患者因大唾液腺癌或皮肤鳞状细胞癌接受同侧照射。在此期间,PBRT的应用使得治疗方式立即从IMRT转变为PBRT,靶区勾画未发生任何改变。使用美国国立癌症研究所不良事件通用术语标准第4.0版评估急性毒性。
23例(56.1%)患者接受IMRT治疗,18例(43.9%)接受PBRT治疗。两组在基线、治疗和靶区体积特征方面均衡可比。与PBRT计划相比,IMRT计划的中位最大脑干剂量更高(29.7 Gy vs. 0.62 Gy(相对生物效应),P<0.001)、最大脊髓剂量更高(36.3 Gy vs. 1.88 Gy(相对生物效应),P<0.001)、平均口腔剂量更高(20.6 Gy vs. 0.94 Gy(相对生物效应),P<0.001)、平均对侧腮腺剂量更高(1.4 Gy vs. 0.0 Gy(相对生物效应),P<0.001)以及平均对侧下颌下腺剂量更高(4.1 Gy vs. 0.0 Gy(相对生物效应),P<0.001)。PBRT的2级或更高级别急性味觉障碍发生率(5.6% vs. 65.2%,P<0.001)、黏膜炎发生率(16.7% vs. 52.2%,P=0.019)和恶心发生率(11.1% vs. 56.5%,P=0.003)显著更低。
PBRT的独特特性使得在照射同侧头颈部时,在不牺牲靶区覆盖的情况下能更大程度地减少正常组织受照剂量。这种剂量学优势似乎转化为更低的急性治疗相关毒性发生率。