Dosimetric comparison of intensity modulated radiotherapy and intensity modulated proton therapy in the treatment of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetric performance of Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) in terms of target volume coverage and sparing of neurological organs-at-risk (OARs) in salvaging recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (rNPC). The maximum dose to the internal carotid artery (ICA) and nasopharyngeal (NP) mucosa, which are associated with potential carotid blowout and massive epistaxis, were also evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IMRT and IMPT treatment plans were created for twenty patients with locally advanced rNPC. Planning Target Volume (PTV) was used to account for the setup and spatial error/uncertainty in the IMRT planning. Robust optimization on Clinical Target Volume (CTV) coverage with consideration of range and setup uncertainty was employed to produce two IMPT plans with 3-field and 4-field arrangements. The planning objective was to deliver 60 Gy to the PTV (IMRT) and CTV (IMPT) without exceeding the maximum lifetime cumulative Biologically Effective Dose (BED) of the neurological OARs (applied to the Planning organs-at-risk volume). The target dose coverage as well as the maximum dose to the neurological OARs, ICA, and NP mucosa were compared. RESULTS: Compared with IMRT, 3-field IMPT achieved better coverage to GTV V100% (83.3% vs. 73.2%, P <0.01) and CTV V100% (80.5% vs. 72.4%, P <0.01), and lower maximum dose to the critical OARs including the spinal cord (19.2 Gy vs. 22.3 Gy, P <0.01), brainstem (30.0 Gy vs. 32.3 Gy, P <0.01) and optic chiasm (6.6 Gy vs. 9.8 Gy, P <0.01). The additional beam with the 4-fields IMPT plans further improved the target coverage from the 3-field IMPT (CTV V98% 85.3% vs. 82.4%, P <0.01) with similar OAR sparing. However, the target dose was highly non-uniform with both IMPT plans, leading to a significantly higher maximum dose to the ICA (∼68 Gy vs. 62.6 Gy, P <0.01) and NP mucosa (∼72 Gy vs. 62.8 Gy, P <0.01) than IMRT. CONCLUSION: IMPT demonstrated some dosimetric advantage over IMRT in treating rNPC. However, IMPT could also result in very high dose hot spots in the target volume. Careful consideration of the ICA and NP mucosal complications is recommended when applying IMPT on rNPC patients.