Comparison of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of head and neck cancer based on radiobiological modelling

IF 0.3 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice Pub Date : 2023-03-13 DOI:10.1017/S1460396922000449

My-Lien Nguyen, Kazi T. Afrin, Patrick Newbury, C. Henson, Salahuddin Ahmad

{"title":"Comparison of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of head and neck cancer based on radiobiological modelling","authors":"My-Lien Nguyen, Kazi T. Afrin, Patrick Newbury, C. Henson, Salahuddin Ahmad","doi":"10.1017/S1460396922000449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Aim: The aim of our study is to retrospectively report the radiobiological aspects for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) against intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients with head and neck cancer treated at our institution. A secondary goal is to reinforce current model-based approaches to head and neck cancer patient selection for IMPT. Materials and Methods: Eighteen patients were evaluated with prescription doses ranging from 50 to 70 Gy delivered in 2 Gy per fraction. The dose volume histograms (DVH) were used to calculate equivalent uniform dose (EUD), tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for biophysical comparison using mechanistic mathematical dose response models. Absolute values of TCP and NTCP were then compared between IMPT and IMRT. Results: The dose models demonstrate a minimal radiobiological advantage for IMPT compared to IMRT in treating head and neck cancers. Absolute values of TCP were slightly higher, while absolute values of NTCP were slightly lower for IMPT versus IMRT. Conclusions: Further studies are needed to determine if the radiobiological advantage indeed translates to a therapeutic advantage for patients.","PeriodicalId":44597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1460396922000449","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Aim: The aim of our study is to retrospectively report the radiobiological aspects for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) against intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients with head and neck cancer treated at our institution. A secondary goal is to reinforce current model-based approaches to head and neck cancer patient selection for IMPT. Materials and Methods: Eighteen patients were evaluated with prescription doses ranging from 50 to 70 Gy delivered in 2 Gy per fraction. The dose volume histograms (DVH) were used to calculate equivalent uniform dose (EUD), tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for biophysical comparison using mechanistic mathematical dose response models. Absolute values of TCP and NTCP were then compared between IMPT and IMRT. Results: The dose models demonstrate a minimal radiobiological advantage for IMPT compared to IMRT in treating head and neck cancers. Absolute values of TCP were slightly higher, while absolute values of NTCP were slightly lower for IMPT versus IMRT. Conclusions: Further studies are needed to determine if the radiobiological advantage indeed translates to a therapeutic advantage for patients.

查看原文本刊更多论文

基于放射生物学模型的调强质子治疗(IMPT)与调强放疗(IMRT)治疗头颈癌的比较

摘要目的：我们研究的目的是回顾性报道在我院治疗的癌症头颈部患者的强度调制质子治疗（IMPT）与强度调制放射治疗（IMRT）的放射生物学方面。第二个目标是加强目前基于模型的方法来选择头颈部癌症患者进行IMPT。材料和方法：对18名患者进行评估，处方剂量为50至70Gy，每次2 Gy。剂量-体积直方图（DVH）用于计算等效均匀剂量（EUD）、肿瘤控制概率（TCP）和正常组织并发症概率（NTCP），用于使用机械数学剂量-反应模型进行生物物理比较。然后在IMPT和IMRT之间比较TCP和NTCP的绝对值。结果：与IMRT相比，剂量模型显示IMPT在治疗头颈癌方面具有最小的放射生物学优势。与IMRT相比，IMPT的TCP绝对值略高，而NTCP的绝对值略低。结论：需要进一步的研究来确定放射生物学优势是否真的转化为患者的治疗优势。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-

CiteScore

0.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice is a peer-reviewed journal covering all of the current modalities specific to clinical oncology and radiotherapy. The journal aims to publish research from a wide range of styles and encourage debate and the exchange of information and opinion from within the field of radiotherapy practice and clinical oncology. The journal also aims to encourage technical evaluations and case studies as well as equipment reviews that will be of interest to an international radiotherapy audience.