Search

Purpose: To compare Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in patients with endometrial cancer receiving adjuvant pelvic radiation therapy with proton beam therapy (PT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Materials and Methods: Patients with uterine cancer treated with curative intent who received either adjuvant PT or IMRT between 2014 and 2020 were identified. Patients were enrolled into a prospective registry using a gynecologic-specific subset of PRO-CTCAE designed to assess symptom impact on daily living. Questions included gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms of diarrhea, flatulence, bowel incontinence, and constipation in addition to other pertinent gynecologic, urinary, and other general symptoms. Symptom-based questions were on a 0- to 4-point scale, with grade 3+ symptoms occurring frequently or almost always. Patient-reported toxicity was analyzed at baseline, end of treatment (EOT), and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after treatment. Unequal variance t tests were used to determine if treatment type was a significant factor in baseline-adjusted PRO-CTCAE. Results: Sixty-seven patients met inclusion criteria. Twenty-two received PT and 45 patients received IMRT. Brachytherapy boost was delivered in 73% of patients. Median external beam dose was 45 Gy for both PT and IMRT (range, 45–58.8 Gy). When comparing PRO-CTCAE, PT was associated with less diarrhea at EOT (P = .01) and at 12 months (P = .24) than IMRT. Loss of bowel control at 12 months was more common in patients receiving IMRT (P = .15). Any patient reporting grade 3+ GI toxicity was noted more frequently with IMRT (31% versus 9%, P = .09). Discussion: Adjuvant PT is a promising treatment for patients with uterine cancer and may reduce patient-reported GI toxicity as compared with IMRT.

Purpose: To successfully plan and treat a patient with diffuse angiosarcoma involving the face and scalp with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) before surgical resection. Materials and Methods: A patient presented to the radiation oncology department for preoperative treatment of an angiosarcoma diffusely involving the face and scalp. A 4-field IMPT technique was used to create a homogeneous dose distribution to the entire target volume while sparing underlying critical structures from toxicity and low-dose spread. A custom Monte Carlo optimizer was necessary to achieve treatment goals. Biological dose was evaluated with a linear energy transfer–based biological enhancement model. Robustness criteria were evaluated per department standard. The patient was successfully planned and treated according to clinical goals. Results: The patient successfully completed the course of IMPT and was able to undergo surgical resection. Pathology indicated no presence of angiosarcoma. Conclusion: IMPT using a custom Monte Carlo optimizer is a suitable radiation therapy treatment option for patients with diffuse angiosarcoma of the scalp and face.