Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
Radiother Oncol. 2022 Dec;177:197-204. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.11.001. Epub 2022 Nov 8.
In the Netherlands, oesophageal cancer (EC) patients are selected for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) using the expected normal tissue complication probability reduction (ΔNTCP) when treating with IMPT compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). In this study, we evaluate the robustness of the first EC patients treated with IMPT in our clinic in terms of target and organs-at-risk (OAR) dose with corresponding NTCP, as compared to VMAT.
For 20 consecutive EC patients, clinical IMPT and VMAT plans were created on the average planning 4DCT. Both plans were robustly evaluated on weekly repeated 4DCTs and if target coverage degraded, replanning was performed. Target coverage was evaluated for complete treatment trajectories with and without replanning. The planned and accumulated mean lung dose (MLD) and mean heart dose (MHD) were additionally evaluated and translated into NTCP.
Replanning in the clinic was performed more often for IMPT (15x) than would have been needed for VMAT (8x) (p = 0.11). Both adaptive treatments would have resulted in adequate accumulated target dose coverage. Replanning in the first week of treatment had most clinical impact, as anatomical changes resulting in insufficient accumulated target coverage were already observed at this stage. No differences were found in MLD between the planned dose and the accumulated dose. Accumulated MHD differed from the planned dose (p < 0.001), but since these differences were similar for VMAT and IMPT (1.0 and 1.5 Gy, respectively), the ΔNTCP remained unchanged.
Following an adaptive clinical workflow, adequate target dose coverage and stable OAR doses with corresponding NTCPs was assured for both IMPT and VMAT.
在荷兰,食管癌(EC)患者在接受调强质子治疗(IMPT)时,会根据与容积调强弧形治疗(VMAT)相比,IMPT 治疗时预计正常组织并发症概率降低(ΔNTCP)来选择。在这项研究中,我们评估了前 20 例在我们诊所接受 IMPT 治疗的 EC 患者的靶区和危及器官(OAR)剂量的稳健性及其相应的 NTCP,与 VMAT 相比。
对 20 例连续的 EC 患者,在平均计划 4DCT 上创建了临床 IMPT 和 VMAT 计划。如果靶区覆盖率降低,对这两种计划都在每周重复的 4DCT 上进行稳健性评估,并进行重新计划。评估了完整治疗轨迹和无重新计划的靶区覆盖率。此外,还评估和翻译了计划和累积平均肺剂量(MLD)和平均心脏剂量(MHD),并将其转化为 NTCP。
在诊所中,IMPT 比 VMAT 更频繁地进行了重新计划(15 次对 8 次)(p=0.11)。两种适应性治疗都将导致足够的累积靶区剂量覆盖。在治疗的第一周进行的重新计划具有最大的临床影响,因为在这个阶段已经观察到导致累积靶区覆盖不足的解剖结构变化。计划剂量和累积剂量之间的 MLD 没有差异。累积 MHD 与计划剂量不同(p<0.001),但由于 VMAT 和 IMPT 的差异相似(分别为 1.0 和 1.5Gy),因此 ΔNTCP 保持不变。
遵循适应性临床工作流程,确保了 IMPT 和 VMAT 都有足够的靶区剂量覆盖和稳定的 OAR 剂量及其相应的 NTCP。