Dosimetric impact of bone marrow sparing for robustly optimized IMPT for locally advanced cervical cancer.
Journal
Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
ISSN: 1879-0887
Titre abrégé: Radiother Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8407192
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Mar 2024
10 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
20
02
2024
accepted:
07
03
2024
medline:
13
3
2024
pubmed:
13
3
2024
entrez:
12
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To investigate the trade-off between bone marrow sparing (BMS) and dose to organs at risk (OARs) for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for women with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). Twenty LACC patients were retrospectively included. IMPT plans were created for each patient using automated treatment planning. These plans progressively reduced bone marrow mean doses by steps of 1 GyRBE, while constraining target coverage and conformality. The relation between bone marrow dose and bladder, small bowel, rectum, and sigmoid doses was evaluated. A total of 140 IMPT plans were created. Plans without BMS had an average [range] bone marrow mean dose of 17.3 [14.7-21.6] GyRBE, which reduced to 12.0 [10.0-14.0] GyRBE with maximum BMS. The mean OAR dose [range] increased modestly for 1 GyRBE BMS: 0.2 [0.0 - 0.6] GyRBE for bladder, 0.3 [-0.2 - 0.7] GyRBE for rectum, 0.4 [0.1 - 0.8] GyRBE for small bowel, and 0.2 [-0.2 - 0.4] GyRBE for sigmoid. Moreover, for maximum BMS, mean OAR doses [range] escalated by 3.3 [0.1 - 6.7] GyRBE for bladder, 5.8 [1.8 - 12.4] GyRBE for rectum, 3.9 [1.6 - 5.9] GyRBE for small bowel, and 2.7 [0.6 - 5.9] GyRBE for sigmoid. Achieving 1 GyRBE BMS for IMPT is feasible for LACC patients with limited dosimetric impact on other OARs. While further bone marrow dose reduction is possible for some patients, it may increase OAR doses substantially for others. Hence, we recommend a personalized approach when introducing BMS into clinical IMPT treatment planning to carefully assess individual patient benefits and risks.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the trade-off between bone marrow sparing (BMS) and dose to organs at risk (OARs) for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for women with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Twenty LACC patients were retrospectively included. IMPT plans were created for each patient using automated treatment planning. These plans progressively reduced bone marrow mean doses by steps of 1 GyRBE, while constraining target coverage and conformality. The relation between bone marrow dose and bladder, small bowel, rectum, and sigmoid doses was evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 140 IMPT plans were created. Plans without BMS had an average [range] bone marrow mean dose of 17.3 [14.7-21.6] GyRBE, which reduced to 12.0 [10.0-14.0] GyRBE with maximum BMS. The mean OAR dose [range] increased modestly for 1 GyRBE BMS: 0.2 [0.0 - 0.6] GyRBE for bladder, 0.3 [-0.2 - 0.7] GyRBE for rectum, 0.4 [0.1 - 0.8] GyRBE for small bowel, and 0.2 [-0.2 - 0.4] GyRBE for sigmoid. Moreover, for maximum BMS, mean OAR doses [range] escalated by 3.3 [0.1 - 6.7] GyRBE for bladder, 5.8 [1.8 - 12.4] GyRBE for rectum, 3.9 [1.6 - 5.9] GyRBE for small bowel, and 2.7 [0.6 - 5.9] GyRBE for sigmoid.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Achieving 1 GyRBE BMS for IMPT is feasible for LACC patients with limited dosimetric impact on other OARs. While further bone marrow dose reduction is possible for some patients, it may increase OAR doses substantially for others. Hence, we recommend a personalized approach when introducing BMS into clinical IMPT treatment planning to carefully assess individual patient benefits and risks.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38471634
pii: S0167-8140(24)00144-0
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110222
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
110222Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.