Lideståhl Anders, Fredén Emil, Siegbahn Albert, Johansson Gracinda, Lind Pehr A
Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Oncology, Stockholm South General Hospital, 11883 Stockholm, Sweden.
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Dec 7;15(24):5736. doi: 10.3390/cancers15245736.
The aim of this planning study was to compare the dosimetric outcomes of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), Proton Beam Therapy (PBT), and conventional External Beam Radiation Therapy (cEBRT) in the treatment of thoracic spinal metastases originating from breast or prostate cancer. Our study utilized data from 30 different treatment plans and evaluated target coverage and doses to vital organs at risk (OARs), such as the spinal cord, heart, esophagus, and lungs. The results showed that VMAT and PBT achieved superior target coverage and significantly lower doses to the spinal cord compared to cEBRT (target: median PTV: 75.2 for cEBRT vs. 92.9 and 91.7 for VMAT ( < 0.001) and PBT ( < 0.001), respectively; spinal cord: median D: 105.1 for cEBRT vs. 100.4 and 103.6 for VMAT ( < 0.001) and PBT ( = 0.002), respectively). Specifically, VMAT was notable for its superior target coverage and PBT for significantly lower doses to heart, lungs, and esophagus. However, VMAT resulted in higher lung doses, indicating potential trade-offs among different techniques. The study demonstrated the relative advantages of VMAT and PBT over traditional RT in the palliative treatment of spinal metastases using conventional fractionation. These findings underscore the potential of VMAT and PBT to improve dosimetric outcomes, suggesting that they may be more suitable for certain patient groups for whom the sparing of specific OARs is especially important.
本规划研究的目的是比较容积调强弧形放疗(VMAT)、质子束治疗(PBT)和传统外照射放疗(cEBRT)在治疗源自乳腺癌或前列腺癌的胸椎转移瘤方面的剂量学结果。我们的研究利用了来自30个不同治疗计划的数据,并评估了对脊髓、心脏、食管和肺等危及生命器官(OARs)的靶区覆盖和剂量。结果显示,与cEBRT相比,VMAT和PBT实现了更好的靶区覆盖,且脊髓剂量显著更低(靶区:cEBRT的PTV中位数为75.2,而VMAT为92.9(<0.001),PBT为91.7(<0.001);脊髓:cEBRT的D中位数为105.1,而VMAT为100.4(<0.001),PBT为103.6(=0.002))。具体而言,VMAT以其出色的靶区覆盖而显著,PBT则以对心脏、肺和食管的剂量显著更低而突出。然而,VMAT导致肺部剂量更高,这表明不同技术之间存在潜在的权衡。该研究证明了VMAT和PBT在使用传统分割方式姑息治疗脊柱转移瘤方面相对于传统放疗的相对优势。这些发现强调了VMAT和PBT改善剂量学结果的潜力,表明它们可能更适合某些特定OARs保护尤为重要的患者群体。