{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024873096446700507, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015736040609137057, 'mean_word_length': 5.159375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of Critical Structure Dose and Toxicity Risks in Patients with Low Grade Gliomas Treated with IMRT versus Proton Radiation Therapy

Proton therapy offers dosimetric advantage of decreased dose to non-target tissues. This study explored the potential benefits of proton radiation therapy versus photon based intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients with low grade gliomas (LGG) through dosimetric comparison and biological modeling of potential radiation-induced toxicities. Eleven patients were treated with fractionated proton radiation therapy on a prospective protocol assessing for feasibility and treatment toxicity of proton radiation therapy in patients with LGG. IMRT treatment plans were created for each patient using the same CT planning data set and defined structures. The prescription dose to the clinical target volume (CTV) was 54 Gy(RBE). The toxicity risk of IMRT and protons was estimated based upon equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) modeling. The risk of secondary tumors for each modality was estimated. Proton EUD for most immediate normal tissue structures was between 10–20 Gy lower than the EUD delivered by IMRT. However, the difference in NTCP was negligible for both modalities. The mean excess risk of proton radiation-induced second tumor in the brain per 10,000 cases per year is 47 (range 11–83), while the mean risk for IMRT is 106 (range 70–134). The mean ratio of excess risk IMRT/protons is 2.2 (range 1.6–6.5), demonstrating that the risk of secondary tumors is consistently higher for IMRT. Proton therapy effectively reduces the dose to surrounding normal tissues in LGG patients. IMRT has a twofold higher risk of secondary intracranial tumors as compared to proton therapy. In most cases, NTCP is negligible for both modalities. The benefit of proton therapy over IMRT may be more substantial in patients with tumors in proximity to critical structures.