Proton pencil-beam scanning radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer: dosimetric parameters and 2-year results

Abstract

Objectives

 Patients with nasopharyngeal cancer are candidates for proton radiotherapy due to large and comprehensive target volumes, and the necessity for sparing of healthy tissues. The aim of this work is to evaluate treatment outcome and toxicity profile of patients treated with proton pencil-beam scanning radiotherapy.

Materials and methods

 Between Jan 2013 and June 2018, 40 patients were treated for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) with IMPT (proton radiotherapy with modulated intensity). Median age was 47 years and the majority of patients had locally advanced tumors (stage 2–8 patients. (20%); stage 3–18 patients (45%); stage 4A–10 patients. (25%); stage 4B–4 patients. (10%). Median of total dose was 74 GyE (70–76 GyE) in 37 fractions (35–38). Bilateral neck irradiation was used in all cases. Concomitant chemotherapy was applied in 34 cases. (85%). Median follow-up time was 24 (1.5–62) months.

Results

Two-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local control (LC) were 80%, 75%, and 84%, respectively. Acute toxicity was generally mild despite large target volumes and concurrent application of chemotherapy with skin toxicity and dysphagia reported as the most frequent acute side effects. The insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrectomy (PEG) was necessary in four cases (10%). Serious late toxicity (G > 3. RTOG) was observed in two patients (5%) (dysphagia and brain necrosis).

Conclusion

 IMPT for nasopharyngeal cancer patients is feasible with mild acute toxicity. Treatment outcomes are promising despite the high percentage of advanced disease in this group.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Chen JL, Huang YS, Kuo SH et al (2017) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy achieves better local control compared to three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for T4-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Oncotarget 8(8):14068–14077. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.12736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Gupta S, Kong W, Booth CM, Mackillop WJ (2014) Impact of concomitant chemotherapy on outcomes of radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a population-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 88(1):115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.09.052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Jiang L, Huang C, Gan Y et al (2018) Radiation-induced late dysphagia after intensity-modulated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients: a dose-volume effect analysis. Sci Rep 8(1):16396. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34803-y

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Grégoire V, Ang K, Budach W et al (2014) Delineation of the neck node levels for head and neck tumors: a update DAHANCA, EORTC, HKNPCSG, NCIC CTG, NCRI, RTOG, TROG consensus guidelines. Radiother Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2013.10.010(Epub 2013 Oct 31)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Lee AW, Ng WT, Pan JJ (2018) International guideline for the delineation of the clinical target volumes (CTV) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother Oncol 126(1):25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Biau J, Lapeyre M, Troussier I (2019) Selection of lymph node target volumes for definitive head and neck radiation therapy: a 2019 Update. Radiother Oncol 134:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2019.01.018(Epub 2019 Jan 30)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Romesser PB, Cahlon O, Scher ED et al (2016) Proton beam reirradiation for recurrent head and neck cancer: multi-institutional report on feasibility and early outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 95(1):386–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.036

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Beddok A, Feuvret L, Noël G et al (2019) Boost in proton for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a curie institute experience. Cancer Radiother 23(4):304–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canrad.2019.01.003

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Widesott L, Pierelli A, Fiorino C (2008) Intensity-modulated proton therapy versus helical tomotherapy in nasopharynx cancer: planning comparison and NTCP evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 72(2):589–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijorbp.2008.05.065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lewis GD, Holliday EB, Kocak-Uzel E (2016) Intensity-modulated proton therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: decreased radiation dose to normal structures and encouraging clinical outcomes. Head Neck 38(1):E1886–E1895. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.24341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Jakobi A, Bandurska-Luque A, Stützer K et al (2015) Identification of patient benefit from proton therapy for advanced head and neck cancer patients based on individual and subgroup normal tissue complication probability analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 92(5):1165–1174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.04.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Iwata H, Toshito T, Hayashi K et al (2019) Proton therapy for non-squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: planning comparison and toxicity. J Radiat Res 60(5):612–621

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    van Dijk LV, Steenbakkers RJ, ten Haken B et al (2016) Robust intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) increases estimated clinical benefit in head and neck cancer patients. PLoS ONE 11(3):e0152477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152477

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Malyapa R, Lowe M, Bolsi A (2016) Evaluation of robustness to setup and range uncertainties for head and neck patients treated with pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 95(1):154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Stock M, Gora J, Perpar A (2019) Harmonization of proton treatment planning for head and neck cancer using pencil beam scanning: first report of the IPACS collaboration group. Acta Oncol 8:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2019.1648858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Góra J, Kuess P, Stock M et al (2015) ART for head and neck patients: On the difference between VMAT and IMPT. Acta Oncol 54(8):1166–1174. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2019.1648858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Müller BS, Duma MN, Kampfer S et al (2015) Impact of interfractional changes in head and neck cancer patients on the delivered dose in intensity modulated radiotherapy with protons and photons. Phys Medica 31(3):266–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Fountzilas G, Ciuleanu E, Bobos M et al (2012) Induction chemotherapy followed by concomitant radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin versus the same concomitant chemoradiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a randomized phase II study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) with biomarker evaluation. Ann Oncol 23:427–435. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr116

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Cao CN, Luo JW, Gao L et al (2015) Concurrent chemotherapy for T4 classification nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy. PLoS ONE 10(3):e0119101. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119101

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Lee N, Harris J, Garden AS et al (2009) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: radiation therapy oncology group phase II trial 0225. J Clin Oncol 27(22):3684–3690. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.19.9109

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Songthong AP, Kannarunimit D, Chakkabat C, Lertbutsayanukul C (2015) A randomized phase II/III study of adverse events between sequential (SEQ) versus simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma; preliminary result on acute adverse events. Radiat Oncol 10:166. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0472-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Levin WP, Kooy H, Loeffler JS, DeLaney TF (2005) Proton beam therapy. Br J Cancer 93(8):849–854. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602754

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Ou X, Zhou X, Shi Q et al (2015) Treatment outcomes and late toxicities of 869 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with definitive intensity modulated radiation therapy: new insight into the value of total dose of cisplatin and radiation boost. Oncotarget 6(35):38381–38397. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.5420

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund-Project: “Engineering Applications of Microworld Physics” (No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000766).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrlik Michal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We declare that there is no conflict of interest, we follow the Ethical Standard Statement, and we grant the informed consent with publication of this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiří, K., Vladimír, V., Michal, A. et al. Proton pencil-beam scanning radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer: dosimetric parameters and 2-year results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278, 763–769 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06175-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Nasopharyngeal carcinoma
  • Proton therapy
  • Pencil-beam scanning
  • Dosimetry
  • Toxicity