International Journal of Particle Therapy最新文献

We present a case of recurrent pericardial effusion presenting during proton therapy in a 24-year-old female receiving mediastinal treatment for classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Pericardial effusion is typically considered an event accompanying lymphoma diagnosis or as a subacute or late effect of radiotherapy. Rarely has it been described as occurring during radiation treatment with photon-based radiotherapy, let alone proton therapy. It is unclear what underlying cause triggered recurrent effusion in this patient. Identifying and managing pericardial effusion during treatment delivery is important to consider as it may affect radiation dosimetry, particularly with proton therapy. Doing so will help ensure patients receive optimal treatment and minimize the risks of morbidity and mortality.

Purpose: To assess acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) targeting the prostate/seminal vesicles and pelvic lymph nodes for prostate cancer.

Materials and methods: A prospective study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02874014), evaluating moderately hypofractionated IMPT for high-risk or unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, accrued a target sample size of 56 patients. The prostate/seminal vesicles and pelvic lymph nodes were treated simultaneously with 6750 and 4500 centigray radiobiologic equivalent (cGyRBE), respectively, in 25 daily fractions. All received androgen-deprivation therapy. Acute GI and GU toxicities were prospectively assessed from 7 GI and 9 GU categories of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4), at baseline, weekly during radiotherapy, and 3-month after radiotherapy. Fisher exact tests were used for comparisons of categorical data.

Results: Median age was 75 years. Median follow-up was 25 months. Fifty-five patients were available for acute toxicity assessment. Sixty-two percent and 2%, respectively, experienced acute grade 1 and 2 GI toxicity. Grade 2 GI toxicity was proctitis. Sixty-five percent and 35%, respectively, had acute grade 1 and 2 GU toxicity. The 3 most frequent grade 2 GU toxicities were urinary frequency, urgency, and obstructive symptoms. None had acute grade ≥ 3 GI or GU toxicity. The presence of baseline GI and GU symptoms was associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing acute GI and GU toxicity, respectively. Of 45 patients with baseline GU symptoms, 44% experienced acute grade 2 GU toxicity, compared with only 10% among 10 with no baseline GU symptoms (P = 0.07). Although acute grade 1 and 2 GI and GU toxicities were common during radiotherapy, most resolved at 3 months after radiotherapy.

Conclusion: A moderately hypofractionated IMPT targeting the prostate/seminal vesicles and regional pelvic lymph nodes was well tolerated with no acute grade ≥ 3 GI or GU toxicity. Patients with baseline GU symptoms had a higher rate of acute grade 2 GU toxicity.

Purpose: Neutron therapy is a high linear energy transfer modality that is useful for the treatment of radioresistant head and neck (H&N) cancers. It has been limited to 3-dimensioanal conformal-based fast-neutron therapy (3DCNT), but recent technical advances have enabled the clinical implementation of intensity-modulated neutron therapy (IMNT). This study evaluated the comparative dosimetry of IMNT and 3DCNT plans for the treatment of H&N cancers.

Materials and methods: Seven H&N IMNT plans were retrospectively created for patients previously treated with 3DCNT at the University of Washington (Seattle). A custom RayStation model with neutron-specific scattering kernels was used for inverse planning. Organ-at-risk (OAR) objectives from the original 3DCNT plan were initially used and were then systematically reduced to investigate the feasibility of improving a therapeutic ratio, defined as the ratio of the mean tumor to OAR dose. The IMNT and 3DCNT plan quality was evaluated using the therapeutic ratio, isodose contours, and dose volume histograms.

Results: When compared with the 3DCNT plans, IMNT reduces the OAR dose for the equivalent tumor coverage. Moreover, IMNT is most advantageous for OARs in close spatial proximity to the target. For the 7 patients with H&N cancers examined, the therapeutic ratio for IMNT increased by an average of 56% when compared with the 3DCNT. The maximum OAR dose was reduced by an average of 20.5% and 20.7% for the spinal cord and temporal lobe, respectively. The mean dose to the larynx decreased by an average of 80%.

Conclusion: The IMNT significantly decreases the OAR doses compared with 3DCNT and provides comparable tumor coverage. Improvements in the therapeutic ratio with IMNT are especially significant for dose-limiting OARs near tumor targets. Moreover, IMNT provides superior sparing of healthy tissues and creates significant new opportunities to improve the care of patients with H&N cancers treated with neutron therapy.

Purpose: Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) improves clinical outcomes at the cost of long-term neuroendocrine and cognitive sequelae. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine whether hypothalamic-pituitary axis (HPA) and hippocampus avoidance (HPA-HA) with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) can potentially reduce this morbidity compared with standard x-ray CSI.

Materials and methods: We retrospectively evaluated 10 patients with medulloblastoma (mean, 7 years; range, 4-14 years). Target volumes and organs at risk were delineated as per our local protocol and the ACNS0331 atlas. An experienced neuroradiologist verified the HPA and hippocampus contours. The primary objective was CSI and boost clinical target volume (CTV) covering 95% of the volume (D₉₅) > 99% coverage with robustness. Described proton therapy doses in grays are prescribed using a biological effectiveness relative to photon therapy of 1.1. The combined prescribed dose in the boost target was 54 Gy. Secondary objectives included the HPA and hippocampus composite average dose (D_mean ≤ 18 Gy). For each patient, volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) and tomotherapy (TOMO) plans existed previously, and a new plan was generated with 3 cranial and 1 or 2 spinal beams for pencil-beam scanning delivery. Statistical comparison was performed with 1-way analysis of variance.

Results: Compared with standard CSI, HPA-HA CSI had statistically significant decreases in the composite doses received by the HPA (32.2 versus 17.9 Gy; P < .001) and hippocampi (39.8 versus 22.8 Gy; P < .001). The composite HPA D_mean was lower in IMPT plans (17.9 Gy) compared with that of VMAT (21.8 Gy) and TOMO (21.2 Gy) plans (P = .05). Hippocampi composite D_mean was also lower in IMPT plans (21 Gy) compared with that of VMAT (27.5 Gy) and TOMO (27.2 Gy) plans (P = .02). The IMPT CTV D₉₅ coverage was lower in IMPT plans (52.8 Gy) compared with that of VMAT (54.6 Gy) and TOMO (54.6 Gy) plans (P < .001) The spared mean volume was only 1.35% (19.8 cm³) of the whole-brain CTV volume (1476 cm³).

Conclusion: We found that IMPT has the strong potential to reduce the dose to the HPA and hippocampus, compared with standard x-ray CSI while maintaining target coverage. A prospective clinical trial is required to establish the safety, efficacy, and toxicity of this novel CSI approach.

Purpose: Medulloblastoma is known to be associated with multiple cancer-predisposition syndromes. In this article, we explore a possible association among a patient's Aarskog-Scott syndrome, development of medulloblastoma, and subsequent brainstem radiation necrosis.

Case presentation: A 5-year-old male with Aarskog-Scott syndrome initially presented to his pediatrician with morning emesis, gait instability, and truncal weakness. He was ultimately found to have a posterior fossa tumor with pathology consistent with group 3 medulloblastoma. After receiving a gross total resection and standard proton beam radiation therapy with concurrent vincristine, he was noted to develop brainstem radiation necrosis, for which he underwent therapy with high-dose dexamethasone, bevacizumab, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy with radiographic improvement and clinical stabilization.

Conclusion: Based on several possible pathologic correlates in the FDG1 pathway, there exists a potential association between this patient's Aarskog-Scott syndrome and medulloblastoma, which needs to be investigated further. In patients with underlying, rare genetic syndromes, further caution should be taken when evaluating chemotherapy and radiation dosimetry planning.

Purpose: To determine factors that influence insurance approval for definitive proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer.

Materials and methods: Between 2014 and 2018, 1592 insured patients with localized prostate cancer were evaluated and recommended to undergo definitive PT; 547 patients (34.4%) had commercial insurance, whereas 1045 patients (65.6%) had Medicare/Medicaid. Of those with Medicare, 164 patients (15.7%) had Medicare alone; 677 (64.8%) had supplemental plans; and 204 (19.5%) had secondary commercial insurance. Insurance that "covered" PT for prostate cancer implied that it was an indication designated in the coverage policy. "Not covered" means that the insurance policy did not list prostate cancer as an indication for PT. Of all 1592 patients, 1263 (79.3%) belonged to plans that covered PT per policy. However, approval for PT was still required via medical review for 619 patients (38.9%), comparative dosimetry for 56 patients (3.5%), peer-to-peer discussion for 234 patients (14.7%), and administrative law judge hearings for 3 patients (<0.1%). Multivariate analyses of factors affecting approval were conducted, including risk group (low/intermediate versus high), insurance type (commercial versus Medicare/Medicaid), whether PT was included as a covered benefit under the plan (covered versus not covered), and time period (2014-16 versus 2017 versus 2018).

Results: On multivariate analysis, factors affecting PT approval for prostate treatment included coverage of PT per policy (97.1% had approval with insurance that covered PT versus 48.6% whose insurance did not cover PT; P < .001); insurance type (32.5% had approval with commercial insurance versus 97.4% with Medicare; P < .001); and time, with 877/987 patients (88.9%) approved between 2014 and 2016, 255/312 patients (81.7%) approved during 2017, and 255/293 patients (87.0%) approved thereafter (P = .02). Clinical factors, including risk group, had no bearing on insurance approval (P = .44).

Conclusion: Proton insurance approval for prostate cancer has decreased, is most influenced by the type of insurance a patient belongs to, and is unrelated to clinical factors (risk group) in this study. More work is needed to help navigate appropriate access to care and to assist patients seeking definitive PT for prostate cancer treatment.