Multifield optimization intensity modulated proton therapy for head and neck tumors: a translation to practice
- PMID: 24867532
- PMCID: PMC4171724
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.04.019
Multifield optimization intensity modulated proton therapy for head and neck tumors: a translation to practice
Abstract
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.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures



Similar articles
-
Inter-fraction robustness of intensity-modulated proton therapy in the post-operative treatment of oropharyngeal and oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas.Br J Radiol. 2020 Mar;93(1107):20190638. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20190638. Epub 2019 Dec 23. Br J Radiol. 2020. PMID: 31845816 Free PMC article.
-
Dose uncertainties in IMPT for oropharyngeal cancer in the presence of anatomical, range, and setup errors.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Dec 1;87(5):888-96. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.09.014. Epub 2013 Oct 25. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013. PMID: 24351409
-
Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) - The future of IMRT for head and neck cancer.Oral Oncol. 2019 Jan;88:66-74. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.11.015. Epub 2018 Nov 21. Oral Oncol. 2019. PMID: 30616799 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Clinical Outcomes and Patterns of Disease Recurrence After Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Oropharyngeal Squamous Carcinoma.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):360-367. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.021. Epub 2016 Feb 12. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016. PMID: 27084653 Free PMC article.
-
[Particle beam radiotherapy].Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho. 2015 Nov;118(11):1384-7. Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho. 2015. PMID: 26897765 Review. Japanese. No abstract available.
Cited by
-
Robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy to account for anatomy changes in lung cancer patients.Radiother Oncol. 2015 Mar;114(3):367-72. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.01.017. Epub 2015 Feb 20. Radiother Oncol. 2015. PMID: 25708992 Free PMC article.
-
A Dosimetric Comparison of Oral Cavity Sparing in the Unilateral Treatment of Early Stage Tonsil Cancer: IMRT, IMPT, and Tongue-Deviating Oral Stents.Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Aug 25;5(6):1359-1363. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.08.007. eCollection 2020 Nov-Dec. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020. PMID: 33305099 Free PMC article.
-
Intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharynx cancer - A case matched analysis.Radiother Oncol. 2016 Jul;120(1):48-55. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.05.022. Epub 2016 Jun 21. Radiother Oncol. 2016. PMID: 27342249 Free PMC article.
-
Toward a model-based patient selection strategy for proton therapy: External validation of photon-derived normal tissue complication probability models in a head and neck proton therapy cohort.Radiother Oncol. 2016 Dec;121(3):381-386. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.08.022. Epub 2016 Sep 15. Radiother Oncol. 2016. PMID: 27641784 Free PMC article.
-
Particle beam radiation therapy for sinonasal malignancies: Single institutional experience at the Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center.Cancer Med. 2020 Nov;9(21):7914-7924. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3393. Epub 2020 Sep 25. Cancer Med. 2020. PMID: 32977357 Free PMC article.
References
-
- . NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. [Accessed January 22, 2012]; Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp.
-
- Chao KS, Deasy JO, 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. - PubMed
-
- Dirix P, Vanstraelen B, Jorissen M, Vander Poorten V, Nuyts S. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for sinonasal cancer: improved outcome compared to conventional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78:998–1004. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials