Each year, 500,000 patients are treated with radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, resulting in relatively high survival rates. However, in 40% of patients, quality of life is severely compromised because of radiation-induced impairment of salivary gland function and consequent xerostomia (dry mouth). New radiation treatment technologies enable sparing of parts of the salivary glands. We have determined the parts of the major salivary gland, the parotid gland, that need to be spared to ensure that the gland continues to produce saliva after irradiation treatment. In mice, rats, and humans, we showed that stem and progenitor cells reside in the region of the parotid gland containing the major ducts. We demonstrated in rats that inclusion of the ducts in the radiation field led to loss of regenerative capacity, resulting in long-term gland dysfunction with reduced saliva production. Then we showed in a cohort of patients with head and neck cancer that the radiation dose to the region of the salivary gland containing the stem/progenitor cells predicted the function of the salivary glands one year after radiotherapy. Finally, we showed that this region of the salivary gland could be spared during radiotherapy, thus reducing the risk of post-radiotherapy xerostomia.
a b s t r a c tBackground and purpose: A planning target volume (PTV) in photon treatments aims to ensure that the clinical target volume (CTV) receives adequate dose despite treatment uncertainties. The underlying static dose cloud approximation (the assumption that the dose distribution is invariant to errors) is problematic in intensity modulated proton treatments where range errors should be taken into account as well. The purpose of this work is to introduce a robustness evaluation method that is applicable to photon and proton treatments and is consistent with (historic) PTV-based treatment plan evaluations. Materials and methods: The limitation of the static dose cloud approximation was solved in a multiscenario simulation by explicitly calculating doses for various treatment scenarios that describe possible errors in the treatment course. Setup errors were the same as the CTV-PTV margin and the underlying theory of 3D probability density distributions was extended to 4D to include range errors, maintaining a 90% confidence level. Scenario dose distributions were reduced to voxel-wise minimum and maximum dose distributions; the first to evaluate CTV coverage and the second for hot spots. Acceptance criteria for CTV D98 and D2 were calibrated against PTV-based criteria from historic photon treatment plans. Results: CTV D98 in worst case scenario dose and voxel-wise minimum dose showed a very strong correlation with scenario average D98 (R 2 > 0.99). The voxel-wise minimum dose visualised CTV dose conformity and coverage in 3D in agreement with PTV-based evaluation in photon therapy. Criteria for CTV D98 and D2 of the voxel-wise minimum and maximum dose showed very strong correlations to PTV D98 and D2 (R 2 > 0.99) and on average needed corrections of À0.9% and +2.3%, respectively. Conclusions: A practical approach to robustness evaluation was provided and clinically implemented for PTV-less photon and proton treatment planning, consistent with PTV evaluations but without its static dose cloud approximation. Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Radiotherapy and Oncology 141 (2019) 267-274 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).The use of margins in photon radiotherapy is a long established and universally adopted method to provide adequate target coverage under the presence of uncertainties. The CTV-PTV margin provides a geometrical buffer zone around the target within which the desired dose is achieved for the majority of treatments; criteria of 95% of the prescription dose in 90% of the patient population has found general appeal [1,2]. The suitability of a geometricallyexpanded buffer zone arises from the (relative) insensitivity of megavoltage photon dose distributions to density changes in the beam path. By and large, the biggest risk to a photon dose distribution is a geometrical miss -a translation of the CTV relative to the beam. Therefore, the static dose cloud approximation (dose distribution is invariant to errors)...
In the Netherlands, head and neck cancer (HNC) patients qualify for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) based on model-based selection (MBS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the first experience in MBS of HNC patients. Methods: Patients who were subjected to MBS (Jan 2018-Sep 2019) were evaluated. A VMAT plan was created for all patients with optimal sparing of organ at risks (OARs) in normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for a number of toxicities. An IMPT plan was created only for those with NTCP difference (DNTCP) between VMAT and best-case scenario for proton (assuming 0 Gy dose for all OARs in IMPT plan) that exceeded any DNTCP-thresholds defined in Dutch National Indication Protocol. These patients qualified for a robust IMPT-plan creation with similar target doses and subsequent plan comparison. Results: Of 227 patients, 141 (62%) qualified for plan comparison, of which 80 (35%) were eventually selected for proton therapy. Most patients were selected based on the DNTCP for dysphagia-related toxicities. The selection rate was higher among patients with advanced disease, pharyngeal tumors, and/or baseline complaints. A significant reduction in all OAR doses and NTCP values was obtained with IMPT compared with VMAT in both selected and non-selected patients, but more pronounced in patients selected for protons. Conclusion: Model-based selection of patients with HNC for proton therapy is clinically feasible. Approximately one third of HNC patients qualify for protons and these patients have the highest probability to benefit from protons in terms of toxicity prevention.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.