局部晚期肺癌的深吸气屏气和自由呼吸调强质子疗法比较

IF 3.4 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Kristine Fjellanger , Ben J.M. Heijmen , Sebastiaan Breedveld , Inger Marie Sandvik , Liv B. Hysing
{"title":"局部晚期肺癌的深吸气屏气和自由呼吸调强质子疗法比较","authors":"Kristine Fjellanger ,&nbsp;Ben J.M. Heijmen ,&nbsp;Sebastiaan Breedveld ,&nbsp;Inger Marie Sandvik ,&nbsp;Liv B. Hysing","doi":"10.1016/j.phro.2024.100590","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><p>For locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) can reduce organ at risk (OAR) doses compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) reduces OAR doses compared to free breathing (FB) in IMRT. In IMPT, differences in dose distributions and robustness between DIBH and FB are unclear. In this study, we compare DIBH to FB in IMPT, and IMPT to IMRT.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Fortyone LA-NSCLC patients were prospectively included. 4D computed tomography images (4DCTs) and DIBH CTs were acquired for treatment planning and during weeks 1 and 3 of treatment. A new system for automated robust planning was developed and used to generate a FB and a DIBH IMPT plan for each patient. Plans were compared in terms of dose-volume parameters and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs). Dose recalculations on repeat CTs were used to compare inter-fraction plan robustness.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In IMPT, DIBH reduced median lungs D<sub>mean</sub> from 9.3 Gy(RBE) to 8.0 Gy(RBE) compared to FB, and radiation pneumonitis NTCP from 10.9 % to 9.4 % (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Inter-fraction plan robustness for DIBH and FB was similar. Median NTCPs for radiation pneumonitis and mortality were around 9 percentage points lower with IMPT than IMRT (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). These differences were much larger than between FB and DIBH within each modality.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>DIBH IMPT resulted in reduced lung dose and radiation pneumonitis NTCP compared to FB IMPT. Inter-fraction robustness was comparable. OAR doses were far lower in IMPT than IMRT.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36850,"journal":{"name":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","volume":"30 ","pages":"Article 100590"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631624000605/pdfft?md5=28d7e0108825d4ff904eaf572aa10e9e&pid=1-s2.0-S2405631624000605-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of deep inspiration breath hold and free breathing intensity modulated proton therapy of locally advanced lung cancer\",\"authors\":\"Kristine Fjellanger ,&nbsp;Ben J.M. Heijmen ,&nbsp;Sebastiaan Breedveld ,&nbsp;Inger Marie Sandvik ,&nbsp;Liv B. Hysing\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.phro.2024.100590\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><p>For locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) can reduce organ at risk (OAR) doses compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) reduces OAR doses compared to free breathing (FB) in IMRT. In IMPT, differences in dose distributions and robustness between DIBH and FB are unclear. In this study, we compare DIBH to FB in IMPT, and IMPT to IMRT.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Fortyone LA-NSCLC patients were prospectively included. 4D computed tomography images (4DCTs) and DIBH CTs were acquired for treatment planning and during weeks 1 and 3 of treatment. A new system for automated robust planning was developed and used to generate a FB and a DIBH IMPT plan for each patient. Plans were compared in terms of dose-volume parameters and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs). Dose recalculations on repeat CTs were used to compare inter-fraction plan robustness.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In IMPT, DIBH reduced median lungs D<sub>mean</sub> from 9.3 Gy(RBE) to 8.0 Gy(RBE) compared to FB, and radiation pneumonitis NTCP from 10.9 % to 9.4 % (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Inter-fraction plan robustness for DIBH and FB was similar. Median NTCPs for radiation pneumonitis and mortality were around 9 percentage points lower with IMPT than IMRT (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). These differences were much larger than between FB and DIBH within each modality.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>DIBH IMPT resulted in reduced lung dose and radiation pneumonitis NTCP compared to FB IMPT. Inter-fraction robustness was comparable. OAR doses were far lower in IMPT than IMRT.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":\"30 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100590\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631624000605/pdfft?md5=28d7e0108825d4ff904eaf572aa10e9e&pid=1-s2.0-S2405631624000605-main.pdf\",\"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/S2405631624000605\",\"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/S2405631624000605","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

背景和目的对于局部晚期非小细胞肺癌(LA-NSCLC),与调强放射治疗(IMRT)相比,调强质子治疗(IMPT)可以减少危险器官(OAR)的剂量。与IMRT中的自由呼吸(FB)相比,深吸气屏气(DIBH)可减少OAR剂量。在 IMPT 中,DIBH 和 FB 在剂量分布和稳健性方面的差异尚不清楚。在本研究中,我们比较了 IMPT 中 DIBH 与 FB 的差异,以及 IMPT 与 IMRT 的差异。在制定治疗计划时以及在治疗的第 1 周和第 3 周采集了四维计算机断层扫描图像(4DCT)和 DIBH CT。我们开发了一套新的自动稳健计划系统,用于为每位患者生成 FB 和 DIBH IMPT 计划。根据剂量-体积参数和正常组织并发症概率(NTCPs)对计划进行比较。结果在 IMPT 中,与 FB 相比,DIBH 将中位肺 Dmean 从 9.3 Gy(RBE) 降低到 8.0 Gy(RBE),将放射性肺炎 NTCP 从 10.9 % 降低到 9.4 %(p < 0.001)。DIBH和FB的分次计划间稳健性相似。IMPT 的放射性肺炎和死亡率的中位 NTCPs 比 IMRT 低约 9 个百分点(p < 0.001)。结论与 FB IMPT 相比,DIBH IMPT 可减少肺剂量和放射性肺炎的 NTCP。分段间的稳健性相当。IMPT的OAR剂量远低于IMRT。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of deep inspiration breath hold and free breathing intensity modulated proton therapy of locally advanced lung cancer

Background and purpose

For locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) can reduce organ at risk (OAR) doses compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) reduces OAR doses compared to free breathing (FB) in IMRT. In IMPT, differences in dose distributions and robustness between DIBH and FB are unclear. In this study, we compare DIBH to FB in IMPT, and IMPT to IMRT.

Materials and methods

Fortyone LA-NSCLC patients were prospectively included. 4D computed tomography images (4DCTs) and DIBH CTs were acquired for treatment planning and during weeks 1 and 3 of treatment. A new system for automated robust planning was developed and used to generate a FB and a DIBH IMPT plan for each patient. Plans were compared in terms of dose-volume parameters and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs). Dose recalculations on repeat CTs were used to compare inter-fraction plan robustness.

Results

In IMPT, DIBH reduced median lungs Dmean from 9.3 Gy(RBE) to 8.0 Gy(RBE) compared to FB, and radiation pneumonitis NTCP from 10.9 % to 9.4 % (p < 0.001). Inter-fraction plan robustness for DIBH and FB was similar. Median NTCPs for radiation pneumonitis and mortality were around 9 percentage points lower with IMPT than IMRT (p < 0.001). These differences were much larger than between FB and DIBH within each modality.

Conclusion

DIBH IMPT resulted in reduced lung dose and radiation pneumonitis NTCP compared to FB IMPT. Inter-fraction robustness was comparable. OAR doses were far lower in IMPT than IMRT.

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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信