Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026
Advancing proton therapy: Dosimetric superiority of proton arc therapy over IMPT in esophageal cancer treatment.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cong Xiaoda, Sebastian Ebin, Liu Peilin, Li Xiaoqiang, Dolan James, Dalfson Raymond, Soukup Martin, Lessard Etienne, Deraniyagala Rohan L, Stevens Craig W, Chen Peter Y, Ding Xuanfeng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Esophageal cancer presents significant treatment challenges due to its proximity to critical structures such as the heart, lungs, and spinal cord. While intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) improves dose conformity, it is limited by factors such as the number of beam angles and lateral penumbra. Proton arc therapy (PAT) may overcome these issues by utilizing continuous gantry rotation to enhance conformity and spare organs-at-risk (OARs). This study compared PAT and IMPT in esophageal cancer, focusing on dosimetric outcomes, and dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) distributions.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on ten esophageal cancer patients with variable tumor characteristics. Treatment plans were created using Monaco v6.1 treatment planning system for both PAT and IMPT, maintaining identical robustness parameters (± 5 mm setup and ± 3.5% range uncertainties). Both modalities were prescribed a total dose of 50.4 Gy(RBE) in 28 fractions, ensuring ≥95% clinical target volume (CTV) coverage in the worst-case scenarios. Key metrics, including conformity index (CI), heterogeneity index (HI), and LETd, were compared. Robustness evaluations were performed across 21 worst-case scenarios to assess plan quality and OAR sparing.
RESULTS: PAT demonstrated superior dose conformity (CI: 0.67 ± 0.17 vs. 0.54 ± 0.13; p < 0.01) and reduced lung V20 (6.88% vs. 13.44%; p < 0.01) compared to IMPT. Critical structure sparing, including reduced spinal cord doses (max dose of (30.93 ± 10.85) Gy(RBE) vs (23.22 ± 9.55) Gy(RBE), p = 0.02), was achieved without compromising CTV coverage. PAT showed higher LETd within the CTV and lower LETd in adjacent organs-at-risk relative to IMPT, without statistically significant differences. While the clinical significance remains uncertain, this pattern may support more refined biological dose shaping.
CONCLUSIONS: PAT emerged as a promising modality for esophageal cancer treatment, delivering improved dose conformity and reduced OAR exposure. These advantages suggest PAT's potential to decrease radiation-associated complications and improve therapeutic outcomes, warranting further clinical validation.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on ten esophageal cancer patients with variable tumor characteristics. Treatment plans were created using Monaco v6.1 treatment planning system for both PAT and IMPT, maintaining identical robustness parameters (± 5 mm setup and ± 3.5% range uncertainties). Both modalities were prescribed a total dose of 50.4 Gy(RBE) in 28 fractions, ensuring ≥95% clinical target volume (CTV) coverage in the worst-case scenarios. Key metrics, including conformity index (CI), heterogeneity index (HI), and LETd, were compared. Robustness evaluations were performed across 21 worst-case scenarios to assess plan quality and OAR sparing.
RESULTS: PAT demonstrated superior dose conformity (CI: 0.67 ± 0.17 vs. 0.54 ± 0.13; p < 0.01) and reduced lung V20 (6.88% vs. 13.44%; p < 0.01) compared to IMPT. Critical structure sparing, including reduced spinal cord doses (max dose of (30.93 ± 10.85) Gy(RBE) vs (23.22 ± 9.55) Gy(RBE), p = 0.02), was achieved without compromising CTV coverage. PAT showed higher LETd within the CTV and lower LETd in adjacent organs-at-risk relative to IMPT, without statistically significant differences. While the clinical significance remains uncertain, this pattern may support more refined biological dose shaping.
CONCLUSIONS: PAT emerged as a promising modality for esophageal cancer treatment, delivering improved dose conformity and reduced OAR exposure. These advantages suggest PAT's potential to decrease radiation-associated complications and improve therapeutic outcomes, warranting further clinical validation.