Dosimetric rationale and preliminary experience in proton plus carbon-ion radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma: a retrospective analysis

• Published in: Radiation oncology (London, England) Vol. 18; no. 1; pp. 1 - 195
• Main Authors: Ma, Ningyi, Ming, Xue, Chen, Jian, Wu, Kai-Liang, Lu, Jiade, Jiang, Guoliang, Mao, Jingfang
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BioMed Central Ltd 01.12.2023; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Biological effects; Cancer; Cancer therapies; Carbon; Carbon ion radiotherapy; Carcinoma; Care and treatment; Chemoradiotherapy; Chemotherapy; Clinical medicine; Dosimetry; Esophageal cancer; Esophageal carcinoma; Esophagus; Hematology; Lungs; Lymphatic metastasis; Lymphatic system; Medical prognosis; Metastasis; Organs; Patient outcomes; Pencil beams; Pencil-beam scanning; Photons; Planning; Prognosis; Proton radiotherapy; Protons; Radiation therapy; Radiotherapy; Relative biological effectiveness (RBE); Risk; Spinal cord; Surgery; Survival; Tomography; Toxicity; China
• ISSN: 1748-717X; 1748-717X
• DOI: 10.1186/s13014-023-02371-9

Abstract Background Concurrent chemoradiotherapy has been standard of care for unresectable esophageal carcinoma. There were no reports on proton radiotherapy (PRT) plus carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) with pencil beam scanning (PBS) for esophageal carcinoma. This study evaluated the tolerability and efficiency of proton and sequential carbon-ion boost radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma. Methods From April 2017 to July 2020, 20 patients with primary esophageal carcinoma at stages II–IV were treated with PRT plus sequential CIRT with PBS. A median relative biological effectiveness-weighted PRT dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions, and a sequential CIRT dose of 21 Gy in 7 fractions were delivered. Respiratory motion management was used if the tumor moved > 5 mm during the breathing cycle. A dosimetric comparison of photon intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), PRT, and CIRT was performed. The median times and rates of survivals were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Comparison of the dose-volume parameters of the organs at risk employed the Wilcoxon matched-pairs test. Results Twenty patients (15 men and 5 women, median age 70 years) were included in the analysis. With a median follow-up period of 25.0 months, the 2-year overall survival and progression-free survival rates were 69.2% and 57.4%, respectively. The patients tolerated radiotherapy and chemotherapy well. Grades 1, 2, 3, and 4 acute hematological toxicities were detected in 25%, 30%, 10%, and 30% of patients, respectively. Grades 3–5 acute non-hematological toxicities were not observed. Late toxicity events included grades 1, 2, and 3 in 50%, 20%, and 10% (pulmonary and esophageal toxicity in each) of patients. Grades 4–5 late toxicities were not noted. PRT or CIRT produced lower doses to organs at risk than did photon IMRT, especially the maximum dose delivered to the spinal cord and the mean doses delivered to the lungs and heart. Conclusions PRT plus CIRT with PBS appears to be a safe and effective treatment for esophageal carcinoma. PRT and CIRT delivered lower doses to organs at risk than did photon IMRT. Further investigation is warranted.