比较用于直肠癌短程治疗的强质子放疗和在线自适应光子放疗

Johanna A. Hundvin , Unn Hege Lilleøren , Alexander Valdman , Bruno Sorcini , John Alfred Brennsæter , Camilla G. Boer , Helge E.S. Pettersen , Kathrine R. Redalen , Inger Marie Løes , Sara Pilskog
{"title":"比较用于直肠癌短程治疗的强质子放疗和在线自适应光子放疗","authors":"Johanna A. Hundvin ,&nbsp;Unn Hege Lilleøren ,&nbsp;Alexander Valdman ,&nbsp;Bruno Sorcini ,&nbsp;John Alfred Brennsæter ,&nbsp;Camilla G. Boer ,&nbsp;Helge E.S. Pettersen ,&nbsp;Kathrine R. Redalen ,&nbsp;Inger Marie Løes ,&nbsp;Sara Pilskog","doi":"10.1016/j.phro.2024.100663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><div>Image-guided proton beam therapy (IG-PBT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT)-based online adaptive photon radiotherapy (oART) have potentials to restrict radiation toxicity. They are both hypothesised to reduce therapy limiting bowel toxicity in the multimodality treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). This study aimed to quantify the difference in relevant dose-volume metrics for these modalities.</div></div><div><h3>Material and Methods</h3><div>Six-degrees-of-freedom IG-PBT and oART short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) were simulated for 18 LARC patients. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) was 1.1 for IG-PBT. Delivered dose was evaluated using post-CBCTs. Target coverage was considered robust if average dose to 99% of the clinical target volume was <span><math><mrow><mo>≥</mo></mrow></math></span> 95% of the prescription. Organ at risk (OAR) doses were compared using dose-volume histograms and severe bowel toxicity estimated using dose–response modelling.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Target coverage was robust in all patients for oART and all but one patient for IG-PBT. For the main OARs, IG-PBT increased the volume exposed to <span><math><mrow><mo>≥</mo></mrow></math></span> 15 Gy (RBE), but reduced volumes exposed to lower doses. Both low- and high-dose exposure to bowel loops were significantly different between the modalities (median (interquartile range) IG-PBT-V<sub>8.9Gy(RBE)</sub> = 92 (51–156) cm<sup>3</sup>, oART-V<sub>8.9Gy(RBE)</sub> = 166 (107–234) cm<sup>3</sup>, p &lt; 0.001; IG-PBT-V<sub>23Gy(RBE)</sub> = 62 (25–106) cm<sup>3</sup>, oART-V<sub>23Gy(RBE)</sub> = 38 (18–75) cm<sup>3</sup>, p &lt; 0.001), translating into similar total grade ≥ 3 bowel toxicity risk.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>IG-PBT and oART delivered comparable and satisfying target coverage in SCRT for LARC with similar estimated risk of severe bowel toxicity. Volumes of OAR exposed to 15 Gy (RBE) or more were reduced by oART, while IG-PBT reduced the volumes receiving doses below this level.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36850,"journal":{"name":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing robust proton versus online adaptive photon radiotherapy for short-course treatment of rectal cancer\",\"authors\":\"Johanna A. Hundvin ,&nbsp;Unn Hege Lilleøren ,&nbsp;Alexander Valdman ,&nbsp;Bruno Sorcini ,&nbsp;John Alfred Brennsæter ,&nbsp;Camilla G. Boer ,&nbsp;Helge E.S. Pettersen ,&nbsp;Kathrine R. Redalen ,&nbsp;Inger Marie Løes ,&nbsp;Sara Pilskog\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.phro.2024.100663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><div>Image-guided proton beam therapy (IG-PBT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT)-based online adaptive photon radiotherapy (oART) have potentials to restrict radiation toxicity. They are both hypothesised to reduce therapy limiting bowel toxicity in the multimodality treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). This study aimed to quantify the difference in relevant dose-volume metrics for these modalities.</div></div><div><h3>Material and Methods</h3><div>Six-degrees-of-freedom IG-PBT and oART short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) were simulated for 18 LARC patients. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) was 1.1 for IG-PBT. Delivered dose was evaluated using post-CBCTs. Target coverage was considered robust if average dose to 99% of the clinical target volume was <span><math><mrow><mo>≥</mo></mrow></math></span> 95% of the prescription. Organ at risk (OAR) doses were compared using dose-volume histograms and severe bowel toxicity estimated using dose–response modelling.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Target coverage was robust in all patients for oART and all but one patient for IG-PBT. For the main OARs, IG-PBT increased the volume exposed to <span><math><mrow><mo>≥</mo></mrow></math></span> 15 Gy (RBE), but reduced volumes exposed to lower doses. Both low- and high-dose exposure to bowel loops were significantly different between the modalities (median (interquartile range) IG-PBT-V<sub>8.9Gy(RBE)</sub> = 92 (51–156) cm<sup>3</sup>, oART-V<sub>8.9Gy(RBE)</sub> = 166 (107–234) cm<sup>3</sup>, p &lt; 0.001; IG-PBT-V<sub>23Gy(RBE)</sub> = 62 (25–106) cm<sup>3</sup>, oART-V<sub>23Gy(RBE)</sub> = 38 (18–75) cm<sup>3</sup>, p &lt; 0.001), translating into similar total grade ≥ 3 bowel toxicity risk.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>IG-PBT and oART delivered comparable and satisfying target coverage in SCRT for LARC with similar estimated risk of severe bowel toxicity. Volumes of OAR exposed to 15 Gy (RBE) or more were reduced by oART, while IG-PBT reduced the volumes receiving doses below this level.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631624001337\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631624001337","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的图像引导质子束疗法(IG-PBT)和基于锥束 CT(CBCT)的在线自适应光子放疗(oART)具有限制放射毒性的潜力。在局部晚期直肠癌(LARC)的多模态治疗中,这两种疗法都被假定能减少限制性肠毒性。本研究旨在量化这些模式的相关剂量-体积指标的差异。材料与方法模拟 18 名 LARC 患者的六自由度 IG-PBT 和 oART 短程放疗(SCRT)。IG-PBT 的相对生物有效性 (RBE) 为 1.1。使用后 CBCT 对投放剂量进行评估。如果 99% 临床靶体积的平均剂量≥处方剂量的 95%,则认为目标覆盖稳健。使用剂量-体积直方图比较风险器官(OAR)剂量,并使用剂量-反应模型估计严重肠毒性。对于主要的 OARs,IG-PBT 增加了≥ 15 Gy(RBE)的暴露量,但减少了较低剂量的暴露量。低剂量和高剂量暴露于肠道襻的情况在不同模式之间有显著差异(中位数(四分位数间距)IG-PBT-V8.9Gy(RBE) = 92 (51-156) cm3,oART-V8.9Gy(RBE) = 166 (107-234) cm3,p < 0.001;IG-PBT-V23Gy(RBE) = 62 (25-106) cm3,oART-V23Gy(RBE) = 38 (18-75) cm3,p < 0.001),转化为相似的总≥3级肠毒性风险。oART 减少了暴露于 15 Gy(RBE)或更高剂量的 OAR 的体积,而 IG-PBT 则减少了低于此剂量的体积。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing robust proton versus online adaptive photon radiotherapy for short-course treatment of rectal cancer

Background and purpose

Image-guided proton beam therapy (IG-PBT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT)-based online adaptive photon radiotherapy (oART) have potentials to restrict radiation toxicity. They are both hypothesised to reduce therapy limiting bowel toxicity in the multimodality treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). This study aimed to quantify the difference in relevant dose-volume metrics for these modalities.

Material and Methods

Six-degrees-of-freedom IG-PBT and oART short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) were simulated for 18 LARC patients. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) was 1.1 for IG-PBT. Delivered dose was evaluated using post-CBCTs. Target coverage was considered robust if average dose to 99% of the clinical target volume was 95% of the prescription. Organ at risk (OAR) doses were compared using dose-volume histograms and severe bowel toxicity estimated using dose–response modelling.

Results

Target coverage was robust in all patients for oART and all but one patient for IG-PBT. For the main OARs, IG-PBT increased the volume exposed to 15 Gy (RBE), but reduced volumes exposed to lower doses. Both low- and high-dose exposure to bowel loops were significantly different between the modalities (median (interquartile range) IG-PBT-V8.9Gy(RBE) = 92 (51–156) cm3, oART-V8.9Gy(RBE) = 166 (107–234) cm3, p < 0.001; IG-PBT-V23Gy(RBE) = 62 (25–106) cm3, oART-V23Gy(RBE) = 38 (18–75) cm3, p < 0.001), translating into similar total grade ≥ 3 bowel toxicity risk.

Conclusion

IG-PBT and oART delivered comparable and satisfying target coverage in SCRT for LARC with similar estimated risk of severe bowel toxicity. Volumes of OAR exposed to 15 Gy (RBE) or more were reduced by oART, while IG-PBT reduced the volumes receiving doses below this level.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology Physics and Astronomy-Radiation
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
18.90%
发文量
93
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Results of 2023 survey on the use of synthetic computed tomography for magnetic resonance Imaging-only radiotherapy: Current status and future steps Head and neck automatic multi-organ segmentation on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Automatic segmentation for magnetic resonance imaging guided individual elective lymph node irradiation in head and neck cancer patients Development of a novel 3D-printed dynamic anthropomorphic thorax phantom for evaluation of four-dimensional computed tomography Technical feasibility of delivering a simultaneous integrated boost in partial breast irradiation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1