High dose proton and photon-based radiation therapy for 213 liver lesions: a multi-institutional dosimetric comparison with a clinical perspective.
Cholangiocarcinoma
HCC
Liver metastasis
Proton therapy
SBRT
SRT
Journal
La Radiologia medica
ISSN: 1826-6983
Titre abrégé: Radiol Med
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 0177625
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2024
Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
29
05
2023
accepted:
15
01
2024
medline:
18
3
2024
pubmed:
12
2
2024
entrez:
12
2
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and Proton therapy (PT) are both options in the management of liver lesions. Limited clinical-dosimetric comparison are available. Moreover, dose-constraint routinely used in liver PT and SRT considers only the liver spared, while optimization strategies to limit the liver damaged are poorly reported. Primary endpoint was to assess and compare liver sparing of four contemporary RT techniques. Secondary endpoints were freedom from local recurrence (FFLR), overall survival (OS), acute and late toxicity. We hypothesize that Focal Liver Reaction (FLR) is determined by a similar biologic dose. FLR was delineated on follow-up MRI. Mean C.I. was computed for all the schedules used. A so-called Fall-off Volume (FOV) was defined as the area of healthy liver (liver-PTV) receiving more than the isotoxic dose. Fall-off Volume Ratio (FOVR) was defined as ratio between FOV and PTV. 213 lesions were identified. Mean best fitting isodose (isotoxic doses) for FLR were 18Gy, 21.5 Gy and 28.5 Gy for 3, 5 and 15 fractions. Among photons, an advantage in terms of healthy liver sparing was found for Vmat FFF with 5mm jaws (p = 0.013) and Cyberknife (p = 0.03). FOV and FOVR resulted lower for PT (p < 0.001). Three years FFLR resulted 83%. Classic Radiation induced liver disease (RILD, any grade) affected 2 patients. Cyberknife and V-MAT FFF with 5mm jaws spare more liver than V-MAT FF with 10 mm jaws. PT spare more liver compared to photons. FOV and FOVR allows a quantitative analysis of healthy tissue sparing performance showing also the quality of plan in terms of dose fall-off.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and Proton therapy (PT) are both options in the management of liver lesions. Limited clinical-dosimetric comparison are available. Moreover, dose-constraint routinely used in liver PT and SRT considers only the liver spared, while optimization strategies to limit the liver damaged are poorly reported.
METHODS
METHODS
Primary endpoint was to assess and compare liver sparing of four contemporary RT techniques. Secondary endpoints were freedom from local recurrence (FFLR), overall survival (OS), acute and late toxicity. We hypothesize that Focal Liver Reaction (FLR) is determined by a similar biologic dose. FLR was delineated on follow-up MRI. Mean C.I. was computed for all the schedules used. A so-called Fall-off Volume (FOV) was defined as the area of healthy liver (liver-PTV) receiving more than the isotoxic dose. Fall-off Volume Ratio (FOVR) was defined as ratio between FOV and PTV.
RESULTS
RESULTS
213 lesions were identified. Mean best fitting isodose (isotoxic doses) for FLR were 18Gy, 21.5 Gy and 28.5 Gy for 3, 5 and 15 fractions. Among photons, an advantage in terms of healthy liver sparing was found for Vmat FFF with 5mm jaws (p = 0.013) and Cyberknife (p = 0.03). FOV and FOVR resulted lower for PT (p < 0.001). Three years FFLR resulted 83%. Classic Radiation induced liver disease (RILD, any grade) affected 2 patients.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Cyberknife and V-MAT FFF with 5mm jaws spare more liver than V-MAT FF with 10 mm jaws. PT spare more liver compared to photons. FOV and FOVR allows a quantitative analysis of healthy tissue sparing performance showing also the quality of plan in terms of dose fall-off.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38345714
doi: 10.1007/s11547-024-01788-w
pii: 10.1007/s11547-024-01788-w
pmc: PMC10942931
doi:
Substances chimiques
Protons
0
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
497-506Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Feb 1;76(2):326-32
pubmed: 20117285
Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018 Nov 22;8:17-22
pubmed: 33458411
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Acta Oncol. 2015 Nov;54(10):1827-32
pubmed: 25765526
HPB (Oxford). 2010 Jun;12(5):313-20
pubmed: 20590905
Lancet. 2019 May 18;393(10185):2051-2058
pubmed: 30982687
Hepatology. 2018 Jan;67(1):358-380
pubmed: 28130846
Cancer. 2011 Sep 1;117(17):4060-9
pubmed: 21432842
Radiother Oncol. 2017 May;123(2):227-233
pubmed: 28274491
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2020 Jan-Dec;19:1533033820980412
pubmed: 33287650
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S94-100
pubmed: 20171524
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2020 Sep;146(9):2351-2358
pubmed: 32356176
Radiat Oncol. 2013 Mar 05;8:48
pubmed: 23497543
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Nov 15;99(4):876-883
pubmed: 29063852
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2019 Oct;10(5):999-1009
pubmed: 31602338
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2020 Sep;146(9):2289-2297
pubmed: 32524292
Radiat Oncol. 2020 Jun 30;15(1):159
pubmed: 32605627
Am J Pathol. 1966 Apr;48(4):597-611
pubmed: 5327788
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015 Jul-Aug;5(4):209-18
pubmed: 25703530
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2017 Jul;27(3):197-208
pubmed: 28577827
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2011 Oct;21(4):256-63
pubmed: 21939854
Cancer. 2016 Jul 1;122(13):1974-86
pubmed: 26950735
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Jul;62:132-7
pubmed: 27189322
Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1965 Jan;93:200-8
pubmed: 14243011
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Mar;114(3):289-95
pubmed: 25497556
J Hepatol. 2020 Jul;73(1):121-129
pubmed: 32165253
Strahlenther Onkol. 2022 Apr;198(4):361-369
pubmed: 34618172
Br J Cancer. 2017 Jun 6;116(12):1520-1525
pubmed: 28449007
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Mar 30;31(5):1237-48
pubmed: 7713785
Radiat Oncol J. 2016 Mar;34(1):64-75
pubmed: 27104169
Lung Cancer. 2020 Mar;141:1-8
pubmed: 31926440
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Apr;111(1):1-10
pubmed: 24560761
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 May;44(5):1795-1807
pubmed: 30710166
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Nov 15;93(4):916-24
pubmed: 26530762
Med Dosim. 2008 Winter;33(4):259-67
pubmed: 18973852