OncoLink Cancer Treatment and Resources

A Comparison of 3-D Conformal Proton Therapy, Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy, and Intensity Modulated Photon Therapy for Retroperitoneal Sarcoma



Reviewer: John P. Plastaras, MD, PhD
Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania
Last Modified: November 9, 2006

Presenter: Christine S. Chung
Presenter's Affiliation: Harvard Radiation Oncology Program, Boston, MA
Type of Session: Scientific

Background

  • The treatment of retroperitoneal sarcoma usually involves a combination of surgery and radiotherapy.
  • Post-operative radiotherapy can entail treating very large, complex volumes located in close proximity to critical normal tissues. This has limited the maximum dose to 45-50 Gy.
  • Technological advances in radiotherapy delivery may improve the ability to deliver high doses while sparing normal structures.
    • Proton radiotherapy can be very conformal, because there is no exit dose and there is minimal side scatter
    • To date, most proton therapy has used passive scattering, which can control the shape of the distal edge of a planning volume, but not the proximal edge.
    • Using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) with scanning beam protons, both the proximal and the distal edge of a planning volume can be shaped.

Materials and Methods

  • This dosimetric planning study compared 3 different treatment methods:
    • 3D conformal proton therapy (3D CPT)
    • intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT)
    • intensity modulated photon therapy (IMXT)
  • Patients:
    • 10 patients undergoing surgery for retroperitoneal sarcoma
    • Radiotherapy was planned pre-operatively in 6 patients and post-operatively in 4 patients
  • Clinical tumor volume (CTV) included:
    • Post-operatively: structures considered at risk for microscopic residual disease
    • Pre-operatively: gross tumor with 1.5 cm volume expansion where possible
  • Target volume doses:
    • 50.4 GyE in 1.8 Gy/ fraction
    • Pre-op Boost of 900 cGy (total 59.4 GyE)
    • Post-op Boost of 1620 cGy (total 66.6 GyE)
  • Dosimetric constraints:
    • Liver: 50% < 30 GyE
    • Small Bowel: 90% < 45 GyE
    • Stomach, Colon, Duodenum: max 50 GyE
    • Kidney: 50% < 20 GyE

Results

  • All three planning techniques were able to get dose to the planning target volume
  • 3D CPT had the best dose homogeneity to the planning target volume:
    • Mean inhomogeneity coefficient: 3D CPT 4.0%, vs. IMXT: 6.8% and IMPT 7.5%
  • IMPT had the lowest mean doses to organs at risk:
    • Liver: IMXT: 11.8 Gy, 3D CPT 6.6 Gy, IMPT 5.7 Gy
    • Stomach: IMXT: 15.4 Gy, 3D CPT 11.8 Gy, IMPT 7.8 Gy
    • Small bowel: IMXT: 13.4 Gy, 3D CPT 7.1 Gy, IMPT 5.8 Gy

Author's Conclusions

  • This is the largest treatment planning study for retroperitoneal sarcomas to date.
  • IMPT, 3D CPT, and IMXT provide excellent target coverage within normal tissue constraints, to doses of 50.4 Gy.
  • IMPT and IMXT plans result in higher inhomogeneity within the target, but all techniques yield clinically acceptable outcomes.
  • IMPT achieves the closest conformity.
  • IMPT and 3D CPT provide the lowest radiation dose to organs at risk.
  • Selective dose escalation to retroperitoneal margins of tumors was achievable with IMPT.

Clinical/Scientific Implications

  • This dosimetric study compared IMXT with either standard 3D proton planning or IMPT for management of retroperitoneal sarcomas. This is a traditionally very difficult tumor type and body site to treat with radiotherapy, given the large, complex target volumes near organs at risk.
  • IMPT using scanning proton therapy is the next generation of highly conformal radiotherapy. Not only is IMPT more conformal, it is also associated with lower neutron contamination than either IMXT or passive scattering proton therapy.
  • Several centers in the U.S. are preparing to use IMPT with scanning proton therapy, but its availability will be limited in the next several years.
  • Long-term clinical data on patients treated with IMPT will be required to determine if these dosimetric gains can be translated into clinical gains

OncoLink I wish u knew...

Dr. Giantonio discusses the importance of oncology clinical trials and clarifies some myths about studies. Read more.

Cancer Types
Bone Cancer
Brain Tumors
Breast Cancer
Carcinoid Tumors
Endocrine System Cancers
Gastrointestinal Cancers
Gynecologic Cancers
Head and Neck Cancers
Leukemia
Lung Cancers
Lymphomas
Myelomas
Pediatric Cancers
Penile Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Sarcomas
Skin Cancers
Testicular Cancer
Thyroid Cancer
Urinary Tract Cancers
OncoLink Vet

Cancer Treatment
Biologic Therapy
Bone Marrow Transplants
Chemotherapy

Clinical Trials
Complementary Medicine
Gene Therapy
General Treatment Concerns
Hormone Therapy
PDT Center
Proton Therapy
Radiation Oncology
Surgical Oncology
Targeted Therapies
Vaccine Therapies

Cancer Support
Caregivers
Hospice Care and Bereavement
Nutrition and Cancer
Sexuality & Fertility
Side Effects
Support
Survivorship
Exercise and Cancer

Cancer Resources
Cancer News
OncoLink University
Nurses' Notes
Conferences
Newly Diagnosed Patients
Causes and Prevention
Legal and Financial Information for Patients
LGBT Resources
NCI Resources
Global Resources
Cancer Resource List
Resources for Young Adults

OncoLink Media Library
OncoLink TV
Book, Music and Video Reviews


Ask the Experts
Brown Bag Chat
Tracy's Corner

About OncoLink
About OncoLink
Giving to OncoLink
Contact Information
Usage Policy
Editorial Board
How to Partner with OncoLink
Link to OncoLink
Mission Statement

OncoLink Cancer Resources RSS What's New RSS