Comparing robust proton versus online adaptive photon radiotherapy for short-course treatment of rectal cancer

Johanna A Hundvin; Unn Hege Lilleøren; Alexander Valdman; Bruno Sorcini; John Alfred Brennsæter; Camilla G Boer; Helge E S Pettersen; Kathrine R Redalen; Inger Marie Løes; Sara Pilskog

doi:10.1016/j.phro.2024.100663

Comparing robust proton versus online adaptive photon radiotherapy for short-course treatment of rectal cancer

Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2024 Nov 2:32:100663. doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100663. eCollection 2024 Oct.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
² Institute of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
³ Department of Radiation Oncology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
⁴ Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
⁵ Department of Radiotherapy Physics and Engineering, Medical Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
⁶ Department of Physics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

Abstract

Background and purpose: Image-guided proton beam therapy (IG-PBT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT)-based online adaptive photon radiotherapy (oART) have potentials to restrict radiation toxicity. They are both hypothesised to reduce therapy limiting bowel toxicity in the multimodality treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). This study aimed to quantify the difference in relevant dose-volume metrics for these modalities.

Material and methods: Six-degrees-of-freedom IG-PBT and oART short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) were simulated for 18 LARC patients. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) was 1.1 for IG-PBT. Delivered dose was evaluated using post-CBCTs. Target coverage was considered robust if average dose to 99% of the clinical target volume was $\geq$ 95% of the prescription. Organ at risk (OAR) doses were compared using dose-volume histograms and severe bowel toxicity estimated using dose-response modelling.

Results: Target coverage was robust in all patients for oART and all but one patient for IG-PBT. For the main OARs, IG-PBT increased the volume exposed to $\geq$ 15 Gy (RBE), but reduced volumes exposed to lower doses. Both low- and high-dose exposure to bowel loops were significantly different between the modalities (median (interquartile range) IG-PBT-V_8.9Gy(RBE) = 92 (51-156) cm³, oART-V_8.9Gy(RBE) = 166 (107-234) cm³, p < 0.001; IG-PBT-V_23Gy(RBE) = 62 (25-106) cm³, oART-V_23Gy(RBE) = 38 (18-75) cm³, p < 0.001), translating into similar total grade ≥ 3 bowel toxicity risk.

Conclusion: IG-PBT and oART delivered comparable and satisfying target coverage in SCRT for LARC with similar estimated risk of severe bowel toxicity. Volumes of OAR exposed to 15 Gy (RBE) or more were reduced by oART, while IG-PBT reduced the volumes receiving doses below this level.

Keywords: Bowel toxicity; CBCT; Online adaptation; Proton beam therapy; RAPIDO; Rectal cancer.