Cargando…

Optimization of Field Design in the Treatment of Rectal Cancer with Intensity Modulated Proton Beam Radiation Therapy: How Many Fields Are Needed to Account for Rectal Distension Uncertainty?

PURPOSE: Preoperative chemoradiation represents the standard of care in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Robustness is often compromised in the setting of proton beam therapy owing to the sensitivity of proton particles to tissue heterogeneity, such as with intestinal gas. The ideal bea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Parzen, Jacob S., Zheng, Weili, Li, Xiaoqiang, Ding, Xuanfeng, Kabolizadeh, Peyman
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8498733/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34646968
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2021.100749
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Preoperative chemoradiation represents the standard of care in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Robustness is often compromised in the setting of proton beam therapy owing to the sensitivity of proton particles to tissue heterogeneity, such as with intestinal gas. The ideal beam arrangement to mitigate the anatomic uncertainty caused by intestinal gas is not well defined. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We developed pencil beam scanning plans using (1) 1-beam posteroanterior (PA) plans, (2) 2-beam with right and left posterior oblique (RPO and LPO) plans, (3) 3-beam with PA and opposed lateral plans, and (4) 5-beam with PA, RPO, LPO, and opposed lateral plans. We created 12 plans with robustness optimization and ran a total of 60 plan evaluations for varying degrees of intestinal gas distension to evaluate which plans would maintain clinical goals to the greatest degree. RESULTS: A single PA beam resulted in considerable loss of target coverage to the clinical target volume prescribed 50 Gy (volume receiving 100% of the prescribed dose [V(100%)] < 90%) with rectal distension ≥3 cm in diameter in the short axis. In contrast, the other field designs maintained coverage with up to 5 cm of distension. On plans generated based on a 5-cm distended rectum with air medium, the 1-beam, 3-beam, and 5-beam arrangements resulted in loss of target coverage (V(100%) < 90%) with rectal contraction ≤3 cm, whereas the 2-beam arrangement maintained coverage to as low as 2 cm. On plans generated based on a 3-cm distension of the rectum, both the 2-beam and 3-beam arrangements maintained V(100%) > 90% even with collapsed rectum to as low as 1 cm, simulating a patient treatment scenario without any rectal gas. CONCLUSIONS: A single PA beam should be avoided when using proton beam therapy for rectal cancer. RPO/LPO and PA/opposed lateral arrangements may both be considered; RPO/LPO is favored to reduce integral dose and avoid beams traversing the hips. In patients for whom the plan CT has rectal distension of ≥3 cm, resimulation or strategies to reduce intestinal gas should be strongly considered.