An Analysis of Positron Emission Tomography Maximum Standard Uptake Value Among Patients With Head and Neck Cancer Receiving Photon and Proton Radiation
Irini Youssef,Nader Mohamed,Daniel Kallini,Kaveh Zakeri,Haibo Lin,Dong Han,Hang Qi,Anton Nosov,Nadeem Riaz,Linda Chen,Yao Yu,Lara Ann Dunn,Eric J Sherman,Rick Wray,Heiko Schöder,Nancy Y Lee
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.03.011
2024-03-16
Abstract:Purpose: One main advantage of proton therapy versus photon therapy is its precise radiation delivery to targets without exit dose, resulting in lower dose to surrounding healthy tissues. This is critical, given the proximity of head and neck tumors to normal structures. However, proton planning requires careful consideration of factors, including air-tissue interface, anatomic uncertainties, surgical artifacts, weight fluctuations, rapid tumor response, and daily variations in setup and anatomy, as these heterogeneities can lead to inaccuracies in targeting and creating unwarranted hotspots to a greater extent than photon radiation. In addition, the elevated relative biological effectiveness at the Bragg peak's distal end can also increase hot spots within and outside the target area. Methods and materials: The purpose of this study was to evaluate for a difference in positron emission tomography (PET) standard uptake value (SUV) after definitive treatment, between intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and intensity modulated photon therapy (IMRT). In addition, we compared the biologic dose between PET areas of high and low uptake within the clinical target volume-primary of patients treated with IMPT. This work is assuming that the greater SUV may potentially result in greater toxicities. For the purposes of this short communication, we are strictly focusing on the SUV and do not have correlation with toxicity outcomes. To accomplish this, we compared the 3- and 6-month posttreatment fluorodeoxyglucose PET scans for 100 matched patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated definitively without surgery using either IMPT (n = 50) or IMRT (n = 50). Results: Our study found a significant difference in biologic dose between the high- and low-uptake regions on 3-month posttreatment scans of IMPT. However, this difference did not translate to a significant difference in PET uptake in the clinical target volume-primary at 3 and 6 months' follow-up between patients who received IMPT versus IMRT. Conclusions: Studies have proposed that proton's greater relative biological effectiveness at the Bragg peak could lead to tissue inflammation. Our study did not corroborate these findings. This study's conclusion underscores the need for further investigations with ultimate correlation with clinical toxicity outcomes.