Cargando…

Intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with hodgkin’s lymphoma. Assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction

BACKGROUND: To investigate the role of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for advanced supradiaphragmatic Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) in young female patients by assessing dosimetric features and modelling the risk of treatment related complicat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scorsetti, Marta, Cozzi, Luca, Navarria, Pierina, Fogliata, Antonella, Rossi, Alexia, Franceschini, Davide, De Rose, Fiorenza, Franzese, Ciro, Carlo-Stella, Carmelo, Santoro, Armando
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6958567/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31931861
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-1462-2
_version_ 1783487440037609472
author Scorsetti, Marta
Cozzi, Luca
Navarria, Pierina
Fogliata, Antonella
Rossi, Alexia
Franceschini, Davide
De Rose, Fiorenza
Franzese, Ciro
Carlo-Stella, Carmelo
Santoro, Armando
author_facet Scorsetti, Marta
Cozzi, Luca
Navarria, Pierina
Fogliata, Antonella
Rossi, Alexia
Franceschini, Davide
De Rose, Fiorenza
Franzese, Ciro
Carlo-Stella, Carmelo
Santoro, Armando
author_sort Scorsetti, Marta
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To investigate the role of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for advanced supradiaphragmatic Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) in young female patients by assessing dosimetric features and modelling the risk of treatment related complications and radiation-induced secondary malignancies. METHODS: A group of 20 cases (planned according to the involved-site approach) were retrospectively investigated in a comparative planning study. Intensity modulated proton plans (IMPT) were compared to VMAT RapidArc plans (RA). Estimates of toxicity were derived from normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) calculations with either the Lyman or the Poisson models for a number of endpoints. Estimates of the risk of secondary cancer induction were determined for lungs, breasts, esophagus and thyroid. A simple model-based selection strategy was considered as a feasibility proof for the individualized selection of patients suitable for proton therapy. RESULTS: IMPT and VMAT plans resulted equivalent in terms of target dose distributions, both were capable to ensure high coverage and homogeneity. In terms of conformality, IMPT resulted ~ 10% better than RA plans. Concerning organs at risk, IMPT data presented a systematic improvement (highly significant) over RA for all organs, particularly in the dose range up to 20Gy. This lead to a composite average reduction of NTCP of 2.90 ± 2.24 and a reduction of 0.26 ± 0.22 in the relative risk of cardiac failures. The excess absolute risk per 10,000 patients-years of secondary cancer induction was reduced, with IMPT, of 9.1 ± 3.2, 7.2 ± 3.7 for breast and lung compared to RA. The gain in EAR for thyroid and esophagus was lower than 1. Depending on the arbitrary thresholds applied, the selection rate for proton treatment would have ranged from 5 to 75%. CONCLUSION: In relation to young female patients with advanced supradiaphragmatic HL, IMPT can in general offer improved dose-volume sparing of organs at risk leading to an anticipated lower risk of early or late treatment related toxicities. This would reflect also in significantly lower risk of secondary malignancies induction compared to advanced photon based techniques. Depending on the selection thresholds and with all the limits of a non-validated and very basic model, it can be anticipated that a significant fraction of patients might be suitable for proton treatments if all the risk factors would be accounted for.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6958567
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69585672020-01-17 Intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with hodgkin’s lymphoma. Assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction Scorsetti, Marta Cozzi, Luca Navarria, Pierina Fogliata, Antonella Rossi, Alexia Franceschini, Davide De Rose, Fiorenza Franzese, Ciro Carlo-Stella, Carmelo Santoro, Armando Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: To investigate the role of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for advanced supradiaphragmatic Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) in young female patients by assessing dosimetric features and modelling the risk of treatment related complications and radiation-induced secondary malignancies. METHODS: A group of 20 cases (planned according to the involved-site approach) were retrospectively investigated in a comparative planning study. Intensity modulated proton plans (IMPT) were compared to VMAT RapidArc plans (RA). Estimates of toxicity were derived from normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) calculations with either the Lyman or the Poisson models for a number of endpoints. Estimates of the risk of secondary cancer induction were determined for lungs, breasts, esophagus and thyroid. A simple model-based selection strategy was considered as a feasibility proof for the individualized selection of patients suitable for proton therapy. RESULTS: IMPT and VMAT plans resulted equivalent in terms of target dose distributions, both were capable to ensure high coverage and homogeneity. In terms of conformality, IMPT resulted ~ 10% better than RA plans. Concerning organs at risk, IMPT data presented a systematic improvement (highly significant) over RA for all organs, particularly in the dose range up to 20Gy. This lead to a composite average reduction of NTCP of 2.90 ± 2.24 and a reduction of 0.26 ± 0.22 in the relative risk of cardiac failures. The excess absolute risk per 10,000 patients-years of secondary cancer induction was reduced, with IMPT, of 9.1 ± 3.2, 7.2 ± 3.7 for breast and lung compared to RA. The gain in EAR for thyroid and esophagus was lower than 1. Depending on the arbitrary thresholds applied, the selection rate for proton treatment would have ranged from 5 to 75%. CONCLUSION: In relation to young female patients with advanced supradiaphragmatic HL, IMPT can in general offer improved dose-volume sparing of organs at risk leading to an anticipated lower risk of early or late treatment related toxicities. This would reflect also in significantly lower risk of secondary malignancies induction compared to advanced photon based techniques. Depending on the selection thresholds and with all the limits of a non-validated and very basic model, it can be anticipated that a significant fraction of patients might be suitable for proton treatments if all the risk factors would be accounted for. BioMed Central 2020-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6958567/ /pubmed/31931861 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-1462-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Scorsetti, Marta
Cozzi, Luca
Navarria, Pierina
Fogliata, Antonella
Rossi, Alexia
Franceschini, Davide
De Rose, Fiorenza
Franzese, Ciro
Carlo-Stella, Carmelo
Santoro, Armando
Intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with hodgkin’s lymphoma. Assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction
title Intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with hodgkin’s lymphoma. Assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction
title_full Intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with hodgkin’s lymphoma. Assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction
title_fullStr Intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with hodgkin’s lymphoma. Assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction
title_full_unstemmed Intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with hodgkin’s lymphoma. Assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction
title_short Intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with hodgkin’s lymphoma. Assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction
title_sort intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with hodgkin’s lymphoma. assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6958567/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31931861
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-1462-2
work_keys_str_mv AT scorsettimarta intensitymodulatedprotontherapycomparedtovolumetricmodulatedarctherapyintheirradiationofyoungfemalepatientswithhodgkinslymphomaassessmentofriskoftoxicityandsecondarycancerinduction
AT cozziluca intensitymodulatedprotontherapycomparedtovolumetricmodulatedarctherapyintheirradiationofyoungfemalepatientswithhodgkinslymphomaassessmentofriskoftoxicityandsecondarycancerinduction
AT navarriapierina intensitymodulatedprotontherapycomparedtovolumetricmodulatedarctherapyintheirradiationofyoungfemalepatientswithhodgkinslymphomaassessmentofriskoftoxicityandsecondarycancerinduction
AT fogliataantonella intensitymodulatedprotontherapycomparedtovolumetricmodulatedarctherapyintheirradiationofyoungfemalepatientswithhodgkinslymphomaassessmentofriskoftoxicityandsecondarycancerinduction
AT rossialexia intensitymodulatedprotontherapycomparedtovolumetricmodulatedarctherapyintheirradiationofyoungfemalepatientswithhodgkinslymphomaassessmentofriskoftoxicityandsecondarycancerinduction
AT franceschinidavide intensitymodulatedprotontherapycomparedtovolumetricmodulatedarctherapyintheirradiationofyoungfemalepatientswithhodgkinslymphomaassessmentofriskoftoxicityandsecondarycancerinduction
AT derosefiorenza intensitymodulatedprotontherapycomparedtovolumetricmodulatedarctherapyintheirradiationofyoungfemalepatientswithhodgkinslymphomaassessmentofriskoftoxicityandsecondarycancerinduction
AT franzeseciro intensitymodulatedprotontherapycomparedtovolumetricmodulatedarctherapyintheirradiationofyoungfemalepatientswithhodgkinslymphomaassessmentofriskoftoxicityandsecondarycancerinduction
AT carlostellacarmelo intensitymodulatedprotontherapycomparedtovolumetricmodulatedarctherapyintheirradiationofyoungfemalepatientswithhodgkinslymphomaassessmentofriskoftoxicityandsecondarycancerinduction
AT santoroarmando intensitymodulatedprotontherapycomparedtovolumetricmodulatedarctherapyintheirradiationofyoungfemalepatientswithhodgkinslymphomaassessmentofriskoftoxicityandsecondarycancerinduction