Dosimetric Comparison and Selection Criteria of Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Adaptive Re-Plan in T3-4 Nasopharynx Cancer Patients.

Simple Summary: Nasopharynx cancer treatment often involves radiation therapy, but choosing the best method can be challenging. This study compares two advanced radiation techniques: one using X-rays and another using protons. Both aim to target the tumor while sparing healthy tissues, but their effectiveness can vary based on the cancer's location and stage. Researchers want to determine which technique works best for different patients, particularly those with cancer close to sensitive brain structures. By analyzing treatment plans for 28 patients, we developed guidelines to help doctors choose the most suitable technique. This research could lead to more personalized and effective treatments, potentially improving outcomes and quality of life for patients with nasopharynx cancer. The findings may also help healthcare providers use resources more efficiently, benefiting both patients and the broader medical community. Background: Proton therapy requires caution when treating patients with targets near neural structures. Intuitive and quantitative guidelines are needed to support decision-making concerning the treatment modality. This study compared dosimetric profiles of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using helical tomotherapy (HT) for adaptive re-planning in cT3-4 nasopharyngeal cancer (NPCa) patients, aiming to establish criteria for selecting appropriate treatment modalities. Methods: HT and IMPT plans were generated for 28 cT3-4 NPCa patients undergoing definitive radiotherapy. Dosimetric comparisons were performed for target coverage and high-priority organs at risk (OARs). The correlation between dosimetric parameters and RT modality selection was analyzed with the target OAR distances. Results: Target coverages were similar, while IMPT achieved better dose spillage. HT was more favorable for brainstem D1, optic chiasm Dmax, optic nerves Dmax, and p-cord D1. IMPT showed advantages for oral cavity Dmean. Actually, 14 IMPT and 14 HT plans were selected as adaptive plans, with IMPT allocated to most cT3 patients (92.9% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.013). The shortest distances from the target to neural structures were negatively correlated with OAR doses. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were carried out to discover the optimal cut-off values of the shortest distances between the target and the OARs (temporal lobes and brainstem), which were 0.75 cm (AUC = 0.908, specificity = 1.00) and 0.85 cm (AUC = 0.857, specificity = 0.929), respectively. Conclusions: NPCa patients with cT4 tumor or with the shortest distance between the target and critical neural structures < 0.8 cm were suboptimal candidates for IMPT adaptive re-planning. These criteria may improve resource utilization and clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]