Search

Abstract Background and purpose To investigate toxicity and efficacy in high-risk malignant salivary gland tumors (MSGT) of the head and neck. Local control in R2-resected adenoid cystic carcinoma was already improved with a combination of IMRT and carbon ion boost at only mild side-effects, hence this treatment was also offered to patients with MSGT and microscopic residual disease (R1) or perineural spread (Pn+). Methods From November 2009, all patients with MSGT treated with carbon ion therapy were evaluated. Acute side effects were scored according to CTCAE v.4.03. Tumor response was assessed according to RECIST where applicable. Results 103 patients were treated from 11/2009 to 03/2011, median follow-up is 6 months. 60 pts received treatment following R2 resections or as definitive radiation, 43 patients received adjuvant radiation for R1 and/or Pn+. 16 patients received carbon ion treatment for re-irradiation. Median total dose was 73.2 GyE (23.9 GyE carbon ions + 49,9 Gy IMRT) for primary treatment and 44.9 GyE carbon ions for re-irradiation. All treatments were completed as planned and generally well tolerated with no > CTC°III toxicity. Rates of CTC°III toxicity (mucositis and dysphagia) were 8.7% with side-effects almost completely resolved at first follow-up. 47 patients showed good treatment responses (CR/PR) according to RECIST. Conclusion Acute toxicity remains low in IMRT with carbon ion boost also in R1-resected patients and patients undergoing re-irradiation. R2-resected patients showed high rates of treatment response, though follow-up is too short to assess long-term disease control.

Abstract Purpose To evaluate feasibility and toxicity of carbon ion therapy for treatment of sinonasal malignancies. First site of treatment failure in malignant tumours of the paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity is mostly in-field, local control hence calls for dose escalation which has so far been hampered by accompanying acute and late toxicity. Raster-scanned carbon ion therapy offers the advantage of sharp dose gradients promising increased dose application without increase of side-effects. Methods Twenty-nine patients with various sinonasal malignancies were treated from 11/2009 to 08/2010. Accompanying toxicity was evaluated according to CTCAE v.4.0. Tumor response was assessed according to RECIST. Results Seventeen patients received treatment as definitive RT, 9 for local relapse, 2 for re-irradiation. All patients had T4 tumours (median CTV1 129.5 cc, CTV2 395.8 cc), mostly originating from the maxillary sinus. Median dose was 73 GyE mostly in mixed beam technique as IMRT plus carbon ion boost. Median follow- up was 5.1 months [range: 2.4 - 10.1 months]. There were 7 cases with grade 3 toxicity (mucositis, dysphagia) but no other higher grade acute reactions; 6 patients developed grade 2 conjunctivits, no case of early visual impairment. Apart from alterations of taste, all symptoms had resolved at 8 weeks post RT. Overall radiological response rate was 50% (CR and PR). Conclusion Carbon ion therapy is feasible; despite high doses, acute reactions were not increased and generally resolved within 8 weeks post radiotherapy. Treatment response is encouraging though follow-up is too short to estimate control rates or evaluate potential late effects. Controlled trials are warranted.

Abstract Ameloblastic carcinomas are rare odontogenic tumors. Treatment usually consists of surgical resection and sometimes adjuvant radiation. We report the case of a 71 year-old male patient undergoing carbon ion therapy for extensive local relapse of ameloblastic carcinoma. Treatment outcome was favourable with a complete remission at 6 weeks post completion of radiotherapy while RT-treatment itself was tolerated well with only mild side effects. High dose radiation hence is a potential alternative for patients unfit or unwilling to undergo extensive surgery or in cases when only a subtotal resection is planned or the resection is mutilating.

Purpose: Surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) has been investigated intensively to ensure correct patient positioning during a radiation therapy course. Although the implementation is well defined for photon-beam facilities, only a few analyses have been published for ion-beam therapy centers. To investigate the accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of SGRT used in ion-beam treatments against the conventional skin marks, a retrospective study of a unique SGRT installation in an ion gantry treatment room was conducted, where the environment is quite different to conventional radiation therapy., Methods and Materials: There were 32 patients, divided into 3 cohorts-pelvis, limb, and chest/spine tumors-and treated with ion-beams. Two patient positioning workflows based on 300 fractions were compared: workflow with skin marks and workflow with SGRT. Position verification was followed by planar kilo voltage imaging. After image matching, 6 degrees of freedom corrections were recorded to assess interfraction positioning errors. In addition, the time required for patient positioning, image matching, and the number of repeated kilo voltage imaging also were gathered., Results: SGRT decreased the translational magnitude shifts significantly ( P < .05) by 0.5 ± 1.4 mm for pelvis and 1.9 ± 0.5 mm for limb, whereas for chest/spine, it increased by 0.7 ± 0.3 mm. Rotational corrections were predominantly lowered with SGRT for all cohorts with significant differences in pitch for pelvis ( P  = .002) and chest/spine ( P  = .009). The patient positioning time decreased by 18%, 9%, and 15% for pelvis, limb, and chest/spine, respectively, compared with skin marks. By using SGRT, 53% of all studied patients had faster positioning time, and 87.5% had faster matching time. Repositioning and consequent reimaging decreased from about 7% to 2% with a statistically significant difference of .042., Conclusions: The quality of patient positioning before ion-beam treatments has been optimized by using SGRT without additional imaging dose. SGRT clearly reduced inefficiencies in the patient positioning workflow., (© 2022 The Author(s).)