Bone marrow sparing in intensity modulated proton therapy for cervical cancer: Efficacy and robustness under range and setup uncertainties

Radiotherapy and Oncology

Volumn 115, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 373-378

  Dinges, Eric ^a   Felderman, Nicole ^a   McGuire, Sarah ^a,b   Gross, Brandie ^a   Bhatia, Sudershan ^a,b   Mott, Sarah ^b   Buatti, John ^a,b   Wang, Dongxu ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HOSPITALS AND CLINICS   (United States)

Author keywords

Bone marrow sparing; Cervical cancer; Proton; Robustness

Indexed keywords

BONE MARROW; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTENSITY MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY; PROCEDURES; PROTON THERAPY; RADIATION RESPONSE; RADIOTHERAPY PLANNING SYSTEM; UNCERTAINTY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

BONE MARROW; FEMALE; HUMANS; PROTON THERAPY; RADIOTHERAPY PLANNING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOTHERAPY, INTENSITY-MODULATED; UNCERTAINTY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84953838196     PISSN: 01678140     EISSN: 18790887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.05.005     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. C.J. Brixey, JC. Roeske, A.E. Lujan, and et al. Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on acute hematologic toxicity in women with gynecologic malignancies Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54 2002 1388 1396
2. P.G. Rose, B.N. Bundy, E.B. Watkins, and et al. Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer New Engl J Med 340 1999 1144 1153
3. L.K. Mell, J.D. Kochanski, J.C. Roeske, and et al. Dosimetric predictors of acute hematologic toxicity in cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent cisplatin and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66 2006 1356 1365
4. E.K. Nugent, A.S. Case, J.T. Hoff, and et al. Chemoradiation in locally advanced cervical carcinoma: an analysis of cisplatin dosing and other clinical prognostic factors Gynecol Oncol 116 2010 438 441
5. K. Albuquerque, D. Giangreco, C. Morrison, and et al. Radiation-related predictors of hematologic toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for cervical cancer and implications for bone marrow-sparing pelvic IMRT Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 79 2011 1043 1047
6. L.K. Mell, D.A. Schomas, J.K. Salama, and et al. Association between bone marrow dosimetric parameters and acute hematologic toxicity in anal cancer patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70 2008 1431 1437
7. C.S. Platta, A. Bayliss, D. McHaffie, and et al. A dosimetric analysis of tomotherapy based intensity modulated radiation therapy with and without bone marrow sparing in gynecologic malignancies Technol Cancer Res T 12 2013 19 29
8. B.S. Rose, B. Aydogan, Y. Liang, and et al. Normal tissue complication probability modeling of acute hematologic toxicity in cervical cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 79 2011 800 807
9. A.H. Klopp, J. Moughan, L. Portelance, and et al. Hematologic toxicity in RTOG 0418: a phase 2 study of postoperative IMRT for gynecologic cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 86 2013 83 90
10. L.K. Mell, H. Tiryaki, K.-H. Ahn, and et al. Dosimetric comparison of bone marrow-sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional techniques for treatment of cervical cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71 2008 1504 1510
11. Y. Liang, M. Bydder, C.M. Yashar, and et al. Prospective study of functional bone marrow-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for pelvic malignancies Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85 2013 406 414
12. 18F] fluorothymidine PET Quantification of Bone Marrow Response to Radiation Dose Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81 2011 888 893
13. S.M. McGuire, Y. Menda, L.L. Boles Ponto, and et al. A methodology for incorporating functional bone marrow sparing in IMRT planning for pelvic radiation therapy Radiother Oncol 99 2011 49 54
14. 18F-FLT PET in hematologic disorders: a novel technique to analyze the bone marrow compartment J Nucl Med 47 2006 1592 1598
15. J.A. Hayman, J.W. Callahan, A. Herschtal, and et al. Distribution of proliferating bone marrow in adult cancer patients determined using FLT-PET imaging Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 79 2011 847 852
16. W.Y. Song, S.N. Huh, Y. Liang, and et al. Dosimetric comparison study between intensity modulated radiation therapy and three-dimensional conformal proton therapy for pelvic bone marrow sparing in the treatment of cervical cancer J Appl Clin Med Phys 11 2010 3255
17. H. Paganetti Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations Phys Med Biol 57 2012 R99
18. A.J. Lomax Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 2: the potential effects of inter-fraction and inter-field motions Phys Med Biol 53 2008 1043 1056
19. A.J. Lomax Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 1: the potential effects of calculational uncertainties Phys Med Biol 53 2008 1027 1042
20. A. Trofimov, J. Unkelbach, T.F. DeLaney, and T. Bortfeld Visualization of a variety of possible dosimetric outcomes in radiation therapy using dose-volume histogram bands Pract Radiat Oncol 2 2012 164 171
21. A. Trofimov, P.L. Nguyen, J.A. Efstathiou, and et al. Interfractional Variations in the Setup of Pelvic Bony Anatomy and Soft Tissue, and Their Implications on the Delivery of Proton Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 80 2011 928 937
22. S. Qamhiyeh, D. Geismar, C. Pöttgen, M. Stuschke, and J. Farr The effects of motion on the dose distribution of proton radiotherapy for prostate cancer J Appl Clin Med Phys 13 2012
23. S. Thörnqvist, L.P. Muren, L. Bentzen, and et al. Degradation of target coverage due to inter-fraction motion during intensity-modulated proton therapy of prostate and elective targets Acta Oncol 52 2013 521 527
24. F. Albertini, A. Bolsi, A.J. Lomax, and et al. Sensitivity of intensity modulated proton therapy plans to changes in patient weight Radiother Oncol 86 2008 187 194
25. G.J. Kutcher, G.S. Mageras, and S.A. Leibel Control, correction, and modeling of setup errors and organ motion Semin Radiat Oncol 5 1995 134 145
26. M. Guckenberger, J. Meyer, D. Vordermark, and et al. Magnitude and clinical relevance of translational and rotational patient setup errors: a cone-beam CT study Seminars in Radiat Oncol 65 2006 934 942
27. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Prescribing, recording, and report proton-beam therapy (ICRU Report 78). J ICRU. 2007;7:83-94.
28. P.C. Park, J.P. Cheung, X.R. Zhu, and et al. Statistical assessment of proton treatment plans under setup and range uncertainties Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 86 2013 1007 1013
29. P.C. Park, X.R. Zhu, A.K. Lee, and et al. A beam-specific planning target volume (PTV) design for proton therapy to account for setup and range uncertainties Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82 2012 e329-e36
30. A. Fredriksson, A. Forsgren, and B. Hårdemark Minimax optimization for handling range and setup uncertainties in proton therapy Med Phys 38 2011 1672 1684
31. W. Liu, X. Zhang, Y. Li, and R. Mohan Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy Med Phys 39 2012 1079 1091
32. J. Meyer, J. Bluett, R. Amos, and et al. Spot scanning proton beam therapy for prostate cancer: treatment planning technique and analysis of consequences of rotational and translational alignment errors Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78 2010 428 434
33. K. Lim, W. Small Jr, L. Portelance, and et al. Consensus guidelines for delineation of clinical target volume for intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy for the definitive treatment of cervix cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 79 2011 348 355