Published September 2018 | Version v1
Journal article

Radiation therapy for deep periocular cancer treatments when protons are unavailable: is combining electrons and orthovoltage therapy beneficial?

  • 1. Calgary Zone, Alberta Health Services, Foothills Medical Centre, 1331-29 ST NW, Calgary, Alberta (Canada)
  • 2. Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Tom Baker Cancer Centre 1331 29 Street Northwest, Calgary, Alberta (Canada)
  • 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, 22 S Greene St, Baltimore, MD (United States)
  • 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, 660 S. Euclid Ave., CB, St. Louis, MO (United States)

Description

Deep periocular cancers can be difficult to plan and treat with radiation, given the difficulties in apposing bolus to skin, and the proximity to the retina and other optic structures. We sought to compare the combination of electrons and orthovoltage therapy (OBE) with existing modalities for these lesions. Four cases—a retro-orbital melanoma (Case 1) and basal cell carcinomas, extending across the eyelid (Case 2) or along the medial canthus (Cases 3–4)—were selected for comparison. In each case, radiotherapy plans for electron only, 70% electron and 30% orthovoltage (OBE), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), conformal arc, and protons were compared. Dose–volume histograms for planning target volume coverage and selected organs at risk (OARs) were then calculated. The V90% coverage of the planning target volume was >98% for electrons, VMAT, conformal arc and proton plans and 90.2% and 89.5% in OBE plans for Cases 2 and 3, respectively. The retinal V80% was >98% in electron, VMAT and proton plans and 79.4%; and 87.1% in OBE and conformal arcs for Case 2 and 91.3%, 36.4%, 56.9%, 52.4% and 43.7% for Case 3 in electrons, OBE, VMAT, conformal arc and proton plans, respectively. Protons provided superior coverage, homogeneity and OAR sparing, compared with all other modalities. However, given its simplicity and widespread availability, OBE is a potential alternative treatment option for moderately deep lesions where bolus placement is difficult.

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rry045; Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6151628

Additional details

Identifiers

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Journal of Radiation Research
Journal Volume
59
Journal Issue
5
Journal Page Range
p. 593-603
ISSN
0449-3060

INIS

Country of Publication
Japan
Country of Input or Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
INIS RN
49083020
Subject category
S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
Descriptors DEI
NEOPLASMS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIATION HAZARDS; RADIOTHERAPY
Descriptors DEC
DISEASES; DOSES; HAZARDS; HEALTH HAZARDS; MEDICINE; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; RADIOLOGY; THERAPY

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Japan Radiation Research Society and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology.
Notes
PMCID: PMC6151628; PMID: 30053071; PUBLISHER-ID: rry045; OAI: oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:6151628