Dose-volume Histograms Of Organs At Risk Research Articles

A treatment planning comparison of intensity modulated photon and proton therapy for paraspinal sarcomas

Purpose A comparative treatment planning study has been undertaken between intensity modulated (IM) photon therapy and IM proton therapy (IMPT) in paraspinal sarcomas, so as to assess the potential benefits and limitations of these treatment modalities. In the case of IM proton therapy, plans were compared also for two different sizes of the pencil beam. Finally, a 10% and 20% dose escalation with IM protons was planned, and the consequential organ at risk (OAR) irradiation was evaluated. Methods and materials Plans for 5 patients were computed for IM photons (7 coplanar fields) and protons (3 coplanar beams), using the KonRad inverse treatment planning system (developed at the German Cancer Research Center). IMPT planning was performed assuming 2 different sizes of the pencil beam: IMPT with a beam of full width at half-maximum of 20 mm, and IMPT with a “mini-beam” (IMPT M, full width at half-maximum = 12 mm). Prescribed dose was 77.4 Gy or cobalt Gray equivalent (CGE) for protons to the gross tumor volume (GTV). Surface and center spinal cord dose constraint for all techniques was 64 and 53 Gy/CGE, respectively. Tumor and OAR dose–volume histograms were calculated. Results were analyzed using dose–volume histogram parameters, inhomogeneity coefficient, and conformity index. Results Gross tumor volume coverage was optimal and equally homogeneous with both IM photon and IM proton plans. Compared to the IM photon plans, the use of IM proton beam therapy leads to a substantial reduction of the OAR total integral dose in the low-level to mid-dose level. Median heart, lung, kidney, stomach, and liver mean dose and dose at the 50% volume level were consistently reduced by a factor of 1.3 to 25. Tumor dose homogeneity in IMPT M plans was always better than with IMPT planning (median inhomogeneity coefficient, 0.19 vs. 0.25). IMPT dose escalation (to 92.9 CGE to the GTV) was possible in all patients without exceeding the normal-tissue dose limits. Conclusions These results suggest that the use of IM photon therapy, when compared to IM protons, can result in similar levels of tumor conformation. IM proton therapy, however, reduces the OAR integral dose substantially, compared to IM photon radiation therapy. As a result, tumor dose escalation was always possible with IM proton planning, within the maximal OAR dose constraints. In IM proton planning, reducing the size of the proton pencil beam (using the “mini-beam”) improved the dose homogeneity, but it did not have a significant effect on the dose conformity.

Optimizing radiotherapy of orbital and paraorbital tumors: intensity-modulated X-ray beams vs. intensity-modulated proton beams

Purpose: This study presents a dosimetric optimization effort aiming to compare intensity-modulated (IM) X-rays and IM protons in 4 different orbital and paraorbital tumors. These are most challenging targets for standard radiotherapy due to their close relationship with the eyes and related structures. Methods and Materials: A primary orbital lymphoma, an optic nerve meningioma, a sphenoidal ridge meningioma protruding into the orbit, and a pediatric parameningeal paraorbital rhabdomyosarcoma were selected for the purpose of this study. Planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OAR) were defined in each patient CT data set for each tumor site. IM X-ray and IM proton three-dimensional treatment plans were implemented. The following total tumor doses were prescribed: 30 Gy for the orbital lymphoma, 54 Gy for both meningiomas, and 50.4 Gy for the rhabdomyosarcoma case. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were obtained for all targets and OAR with both treatment techniques. DVHs were used to predict normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) for the OAR in the vicinity of the tumor. Results: The PTV coverage was optimal and equally homogeneous with both IM X-rays and IM proton plans in the 4 tumor sites. DVHs for most OAR were better with IM proton beams especially in the low- to mid-dose range region. The integral nontarget dose was lower with IM protons in every case (factor ranging from 1.5 to 1.9). However, predicted NTCPs (for severe late effects) were equally low for both treatment techniques in every tumor site. Conclusion: Although IM proton plans optimally decreased the dose to the OAR in all tumor sites, both optimized X-ray and proton beams equally succeeded to reduce severe-toxicity prediction risks to less than 5% while optimally treating the PTV.