Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:As proton beam radiation therapy (PBRT) may allow greater normal tissue sparing when compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), we compared the dosimetry and treatment-related toxicities between patients treated to the ipsilateral head and neck with either PBRT or IMRT. METHODS:Between 01/2011 and 03/2014, 41 consecutive patients underwent ipsilateral irradiation for major salivary gland cancer or cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The availability of PBRT, during this period, resulted in an immediate shift in practice from IMRT to PBRT, without any change in target delineation. Acute toxicities were assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. RESULTS:Twenty-three (56.1%) patients were treated with IMRT and 18 (43.9%) with PBRT. The groups were balanced in terms of baseline, treatment, and target volume characteristics. IMRT plans had a greater median maximum brainstem (29.7 Gy vs. 0.62 Gy (RBE), ​P < 0.001), maximum spinal cord (36.3 Gy vs. 1.88 Gy (RBE), ​P < 0.001), mean oral cavity (20.6 Gy vs. 0.94 Gy (RBE), ​P < 0.001), mean contralateral parotid (1.4 Gy vs. 0.0 Gy (RBE), P<0.001), and mean contralateral submandibular (4.1 Gy vs. 0.0 Gy (RBE), ​P < 0.001) dose when compared to PBRT plans. PBRT had significantly lower rates of grade 2 or greater acute dysgeusia (5.6% vs. 65.2%, P<0.001), mucositis (16.7% vs. 52.2%, P=0.019), and nausea (11.1% vs. 56.5%, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS:The unique properties of PBRT allow greater normal tissue sparing without sacrificing target coverage when irradiating the ipsilateral head and neck. This dosimetric advantage seemingly translates into lower rates of acute treatment-related toxicity.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To report dosimetry and early toxicity data in breast cancer patients treated with postoperative proton radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:From March 2013 to April 2014, 30 patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer and no history of prior radiation were treated with proton therapy at a single proton center. Patient characteristics and dosimetry were obtained through chart review. Patients were seen weekly while on treatment, at 1 month after radiation therapy completion, and at 3- to 6-month intervals thereafter. Toxicity was scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Frequencies of toxicities were tabulated. RESULTS:Median dose delivered was 50.4 Gy (relative biological equivalent [RBE]) in 5 weeks. Target volumes included the breast/chest wall and regional lymph nodes including the internal mammary lymph nodes (in 93%). No patients required a treatment break. Among patients with >3 months of follow-up (n=28), grade 2 dermatitis occurred in 20 patients (71.4%), with 8 (28.6%) experiencing moist desquamation. Grade 2 esophagitis occurred in 8 patients (28.6%). Grade 3 reconstructive complications occurred in 1 patient. The median planning target volume V95 was 96.43% (range, 79.39%-99.60%). The median mean heart dose was 0.88 Gy (RBE) [range, 0.01-3.20 Gy (RBE)] for all patients, and 1.00 Gy (RBE) among patients with left-sided tumors. The median V20 of the ipsilateral lung was 16.50% (range, 6.1%-30.3%). The median contralateral lung V5 was 0.34% (range, 0%-5.30%). The median maximal point dose to the esophagus was 45.65 Gy (RBE) [range, 0-65.4 Gy (RBE)]. The median contralateral breast mean dose was 0.29 Gy (RBE) [range, 0.03-3.50 Gy (RBE)]. CONCLUSIONS:Postoperative proton therapy is well tolerated, with acceptable rates of skin toxicity. Proton therapy favorably spares normal tissue without compromising target coverage. Further follow-up is necessary to assess for clinical outcomes and cardiopulmonary toxicities.

BACKGROUND:Proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer generally involves the use of two lateral beams that transverse the hips. In patients with hip replacements or a previously irradiated hip, this arrangement is contraindicated. The use of non-lateral beams is possible, but not well described. Here we report a multi-institutional experience for patients treated with at least one non-lateral proton beam for prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS/METHODS:Between 2010 and 2014, 20 patients with organ-confined prostate cancer and a history of hip prosthesis underwent proton therapy utilizing at least one anterior oblique beam (defined as between 10° and 85° from vertical) at one of three proton centers. RESULTS:The median follow-up was 6.4 months. No patients have developed PSA failure or distant metastases. The median planning target volume (PTV) D95 was 79.2 Gy (RBE) (range 69.7-79.9). The median rectal V70 was 9.2% (2.5-15.4). The median bladder V50, V80, and mean dose were 12.4% (3.7-27.1), 3.5 cm3 (0-7.1), and 14.9 Gy (RBE) (4.6-37.8), respectively. The median contralateral femur head V45 and max dose were 0.01 cm3 (0-16.6) and 43.7 Gy (RBE) (15.6-52.5), respectively. The incidence of acute Grade 2 urinary toxicity was 40%. There were no Grade≥3 urinary toxicities. There was one patient who developed late Grade 2 rectal proctitis, with no other cases of acute or late ≥Grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity. Grade 2 erectile dysfunction occurred in two patients (11.1%). Mild hip pain was experienced by five patients (25%). There were no cases of hip fracture. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:PBT for prostate cancer utilizing anterior oblique beam trajectories is feasible with favorable dosimetry and acceptable toxicity. Further follow-up is needed to assess for long-term outcomes and toxicities.