Abstract
Purpose
Mesenchymal tumours require high-dose radiation therapy (RT). Small bowel (SB) dose constraints have historically limited dose delivery to paraspinal and retroperitoneal targets. This retrospective study correlated SB dose–volume histograms with side-effects after proton radiation therapy (PT).
Patients and methods
Between 1997 and 2008, 31 patients (mean age 52.1 years) underwent spot scanning-based PT for paraspinal/retroperitoneal chordomas (81 %), sarcomas (16 %) and meningiom (3 %). Mean total prescribed dose was 72.3 Gy (relative biologic effectiveness, RBE) delivered in 1.8–2 Gy (RBE) fractions. Mean follow-up was 3.8 years. Based on the pretreatment planning CT, SB dose distributions were reanalysed.
Results
Planning target volume (PTV) was defined as gross tumour volume (GTV) plus 5–7 mm margins. Mean PTV was 560.22 cm3. A mean of 93.2 % of the PTV was covered by at least 90 % of the prescribed dose. SB volumes (cm3) receiving doses of 5, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 75 and 80 Gy (RBE) were calculated to give V5, V20, V30, V40, V50, V60, V70, V75 and V80 respectively. In 7/31 patients, PT was accomplished without any significant SB irradiation (V5 = 0). In 24/31 patients, mean maximum dose (Dmax) to SB was 64.1 Gy (RBE). Despite target doses of > 70 Gy (RBE), SB received > 50 and > 60 Gy (RBE) in only 61 and 54 % of patients, respectively. Mean SB volumes (cm3) covered by different dose levels (Gy, RBE) were: V20 (n = 24): 45.1, V50 (n = 19): 17.7, V60 (n = 17): 7.6 and V70 (n = 12): 2.4. No acute toxicity ≥ grade 2 or late SB sequelae were observed.
Conclusion
Small noncircumferential volumes of SB tolerated doses in excess of 60 Gy (RBE) without any clinically-significant late adverse effects. This small retrospective study has limited statistical power but encourages further efforts with higher patient numbers to define and establish high-dose threshold models for SB toxicity in modern radiation oncology.
Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund
Paraspinale und retroperitoneale mesenchymale Tumoren benötigen hohe strahlentherapeutische Dosen. Der Dünndarm ist ein dosislimitierendes Risikoorgan. In dieser retrospektiven Studie verglichen wir Dosis-Volumen-Histogramme des Dünndarms mit Nebenwirkungen nach Protonenstrahlentherapie (PT).
Material und Methode
Zwischen 1997 und 2008 erhielten 31 Patienten (Durchschnittsalter: 52,1 Jahre) mit paraspinalen/retroperitonealen Chordomen (81 %), Sarkomen (16 %) und einem Meningeom (3 %) eine Spot-Scanning-basierte PT. Die verschriebene Gesamtdosis betrug im Mittel 72,3 Gy (RBE) mit Fraktionierungsdosen zwischen 1,8 und 2 Gy (RBE). Die durchschnittliche Nachbeobachtungszeit betrug 3,8 Jahre. Basierend auf dem initialen Planungs-CT wurde die Dosisverteilung am Dünndarm reanalysiert.
Ergebnisse
Gemittelte 93,2 % des PTVs (GTV + 5–7 mm) mit durchschnittlich 560,22 cm3 wurden von mindestens 90 % der verschriebenen Dosis erfasst. Bei 7 von 31 Patienten wurden keine wesentlichen Dünndarmdosen (V5 = 0) appliziert. Die Maximaldosis am Dünndarm der übrigen 24 Patienten betrug durchschnittlich 64,1 Gy (RBE). Trotz üblicher Zieldosen von > 70 Gy (RBE) erhielt der Dünndarm nur bei 61/54 % der Patienten > 50/60 Gy (RBE). Das durchschnittlich belastete Dünndarmvolumen (cm3) innerhalb unterschiedlicher Dosisstufen [Gy (RBE)] betrug V5 (24 Patienten): 86,5, V20 (24 Patienten): 45,1, V50 (19 Patienten): 17,7, V60 (17 Patienten): 7,6, V70 (12 Patienten): 2,4. Es traten keine Akut- oder Spättoxizitäten ≥ Grad 2 am Dünndarm auf.
Schlussfolgerung
In dieser retrospektiven Untersuchung an 31 Patienten wurden Dosen von mehr als 60 Gy (RBE) an nichtzirkumferenziellen kleinen Dünndarmvolumina ohne signifikante Spätnebenwirkungen toleriert. Bei entsprechend limitierter statistischer Aussagekraft sollten weitergehende Untersuchungen mit höheren Patientenzahlen durchgeführt werden, um Hochdosisschwellen-Modelle für akute und späte Dünndarmtoxizitäten in moderner Strahlentherapie zu definieren und zu etablieren.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Paraspinal/retroperitoneal mesenchymal tumours require high target doses in close proximity to the small bowel (SB) [24, 28]. Acute and late toxicity following conventional photon irradiation are well documented and often constitute dose-limiting factors [4, 17, 18, 26, 30]. In clinical practice, SB tolerance dose constraints are based on the seminal data analysis and recommendations from Emami et al. [6] published in 1991. These authors estimated a tolerance dose (TD) 5/5 of 50 Gy for one-third of the total SB volume (approximately 1800 cm3) and a TD50/5 of 60 Gy (same volume) for late SB toxicities. For whole-organ irradiation, TD5/5 was estimated at 40 Gy and TD50/5 at 55 Gy. These recommendations remained largely unchallenged and have represented the world-wide established consensus for 20 years.
However, radiotherapy (RT) techniques have developed dramatically during the past two decades, resulting in improved target dose conformity and significantly reduced radiation-induced acute and late sequelae [5, 12, 20]. As part of the Quantitative Analyses of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) study, Kavanagh et al. [11] published a comprehensive review of SB toxicities after RT. These authors recommend limiting the absolute volume of irradiated SB to < 120 cm3 for doses above 15 Gy if individual bowel loops are outlined, and a reduction of the volume receiving > 45 Gy to < 195 cm3 if the entire potential peritoneal space of the bowel is outlined. In general, there is paucity of published data concerning the effects of high-dose RT to small, possibly noncircumferential volumes of SB.
Multiple preclinical comparisons of proton radiation therapy (PT) versus modern conformal RT have suggested a reduction in integral dose to normal tissues, i.e. SB, by PT [3, 14, 27].
This retrospective analysis of 31 patients with paraspinal or retroperitoneal tumours correlates target coverage with SB dose–volume histograms based on the initial treatment planning CT scans and clinical tolerance. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first evaluation of a PT-treated patient cohort that focuses on SB gastrointestinal tolerance (GI) tolerance.
Patients and methods
Between September 1997 and December 2008, 31 patients were treated with high-dose spot scanning-based PT at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) Center for Proton Therapy. The mean age of the patient cohort was 52.1 years. Ages ranged from 10 to 76 years and the cohort included one child. Of the 31 patients, 12 were female and 19 were male. One patient had long-standing history of Crohn’s disease.
The histological tumour diagnosis was chordoma in 81 %, soft tissue sarcoma in 16 % and meningioma in 3 % of the patients
Tumours were located in the lumbar spine region (n = 17) or confined to the sacrum (n = 14). A total of 54 surgical procedures were performed in these 31 patients prior to PT; in 13 patients, surgery was performed using a posterior approach exclusively, in 5 patients, approach was exclusively anterior and in 13 patients, both posterior and anterior surgical approaches were used. No patient received concurrent chemotherapy.
Proton therapy
All patients received exclusively spot scanning PT. This technique was pioneered at PSI and has been routine clinical practice since 1996 [15]. Patients were immobilised prone in an individual vacuum mould outside the treatment room. Daily control was performed using CT scout views prior to PT to verify correct patient positioning in alignment with the planning CT. Weekly or biweekly X-ray-based position verification following PT was also performed [2].
In the majority of patients, fractionated PT was conducted without repeated soft tissue imaging (CT) and alignment was based on bony contours only. For the purpose of this retrospective study, the position of the SB was therefore based solely on the positioning information obtained at the time of the planning CT scan.
Treatment planning was based on proton beam arrangements from posterior and posterior-oblique field angles. Therefore, bowel filling-dependent beam range uncertainties did not generally influence the planning procedure. A relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) factor of 1.1 for protons versus photons was assumed, consistent with previous reports [7, 19]. The prescribed and applied total PT dose ranged from 64 to 76 Gy (RBE), with a mean total dose of 72.3 Gy (RBE). The dose per fraction was standard at a value of 1.8–2.0 Gy (RBE).
Gross tumour volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) had been defined for each patient at the time of PT planning and delivery. CTVs/GTVs were expanded by 5 to 7 mm to generate the respective planning target volumes (PTVs). Review of patient records revealed that organ at risk (OAR) constraints for SB were not defined in the majority of cases; otherwise these ranged from a maximum dose of 64 to 76 Gy (RBE).
Project
Based on the original planning CT scans, the treatment plans of the 31 patients were reanalysed. SB was defined on axial CT levels as the volume extending from 2 cm above to 2 cm below the PTV. The thickness of the original CT slices ranged between 2.0 and 3.0 mm. Contours of small bowel loops were outlined. All delineations were retrospectively performed by one physician and independently verified by a second.
Dosimetric indices showing the SB volumes treated to doses of 5, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 75 and 80 Gy (RBE) were calculated to give V5, V20, V30, V40, V50, V60, V70, V75 and V80 values, respectively. Late SB toxicity was reviewed as recorded during follow-up and correlated to dosimetric parameters.
Toxicity analyses
Acute and late toxicities were defined or retrospectively redefined according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0. Patients were regularly (generally weekly) examined during their treatment procedure. Late toxicities were evaluated by annual follow-up examinations at our institute, or alternatively, by contacting the responsible physician or individual patient by telephone and e-mail/post.
Statistical analysis
Local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) rates were calculated from the PT start date using Kaplan–Meier estimates [10]. Censored events were death (all causes) for OS and local failure for LC.
Results
The follow-up period for the entire patient cohort ranged from 1.6 to 10.4 years. Mean follow-up time was 4.9 years, with a minimum follow-up after PT of ≥ 2 years in 29/31 patients (94 %).
Local control and survival
LC rate was obtained in 16/31 patients (52 %) and resulted in 3- and 5-year actuarial LC rates of 68.2 ± 8.9 and 52.3 ± 10.6 %, respectively. Overall, 21/31 patients (68 %) survived, resulting in 3- and 5-year actuarial OS rates of 83.7 ± 6.7 and 72.1 ± 8.5 %, respectively.
Volume coverage
The mean volume of the high-dose PTV (GTV + 5–7 mm) was 560.22 cm3 (range 6.3–1720 cm3). In 20/31 patients, planning aimed to deliver 95 % of the prescribed dose to 90 % of the PTV. This resulted in a mean of 87 % (range 55.5–99.9) of the PTV receiving at least 95% of the prescribed dose, whereas a mean of 93.2 % of the PTV was covered by at least 90 % of the prescribed dose. OAR constraints for SB did not influence coverage of the high-dose areas in the treatment planning process. However, high-dose PTV coverage was affected by dose constraints to the following OARs: kidneys, generally 30/23 Gy (RBE) to 33/66 % of the organ, respectively; spinal cord, 63–64 Gy (RBE) to the surface and 53–54 Gy (RBE) to the centre; cauda equine, below L4 no constraints, otherwise 70 Gy (RBE); nerve roots, generally 70 Gy (RBE) except for areas in direct contact with residual tumour.
Acute and late small bowel toxicity
Two patients (6 %) experienced grade 1 acute toxicity. No acute higher grade (≥ 2) toxicities were recorded.
Only one patient reported grade 1 late toxicity. No patient experienced grade ≥ 2 late adverse events. This included 18 patients with transabdominal surgical resection.
The composite dose fall-off from 60 to 20 Gy (RBE) at the distal target edge was accomplished within a maximum distance of 2 cm in this patient cohort. This was dependent on the location of the PTV and the beam arrangements (Fig. 1).
Dosimetric analysis of small bowel
Dosimetric analysis revealed that in 7 out of 31 patients (23 %), spot scanning-based PT to total target doses ranging between 70 and 74 Gy (RBE), with a mean dose of 73 Gy (RBE), were delivered without significant dose deposition to SB. The dose to V5 was 0 %, despite the fact that SB was present anteriorly. In these patients, the approximately 3-cm distance between anterior paraspinal PTVs to the most posterior SB wall was sufficient to reduce the dose levels to below 5 Gy (RBE).
In the remaining 24/31 patients (77 %), the mean maximum dose (Dmax) to SB was 64.1 Gy (RBE) at prescribed target doses > 70 Gy (RBE). SB received > 50 Gy (RBE) in 61 % of patients and > 60 Gy (RBE) in 54 %. For these 24 patients, average values of calculated dosimetric indices are presented in Fig. 2; mean values, ranges and the maximum doses to SB ≥ V75 (10/31 patients) are given in Tab. 1.
Non-GI-related acute and late adverse effects
Overall, treatment was well tolerated by all patients. Non-GI-related grade 2 late adverse events were observed in 7 out of 31 patients (22.6 %) and 2 patients (6.4 %) experienced grade 3 toxicities. No grade ≥ 4 toxicity was observed. The majority of patients (71 %) did not experience any significant long-term side effects. Overall, the actuarial 3- and 5-year non-GI-related grade ≥ 2 toxicity-free survival rates were 96.8 ± 3.2 and 88.7 ± 8.3 %, respectively (Fig. 3).
Skin toxicity
The preference for posterior beam approaches (resulting in maximum sparing capability of internal organs) largely resulted in the same skin area being within the entrance path of all fields. Furthermore, surgical pathways and scars were generally part of the PTV. The majority of patients (n = 25, 80.6 %) experienced acute grade ≤ 2 skin erythema. In 4 patients (12.9 %), acute skin toxicity was scored as grade 3. Late toxicities comprised grade 2 skin fibrosis in 5 out of 31 patients (16.1 %) with one grade 3 adverse event (3.2 %).
Neurotoxicity
Chronic grade 2 pain occurred in 3 out of 31 patients (9.7 %). Two patients developed grade 2 functional neuropathies (6.4 %), resulting in sexual dysfunction in one patient and sphincter dysfunction in the second.
Other toxicities
Bone necrosis (grade 3) was diagnosed in one patient.
Discussion
Our study raises questions about the relevance and applicability of photon-based and largely historical OAR constraints for SB in PT and modern RT techniques. Present SB OAR dose definitions and threshold-type models are generally based on percentage-of-entire-organ–volume parameters [1, 8, 13, 22, 23]. They do not address the issue of OAR dose definition based on partial-volume tolerance and/or non-circumferential versus circumferential dose distribution. Both issues are well accepted concepts for other organs—spinal cord, brainstem etc., and notably, for rectum. Our results indicate that SB tolerance concepts warrant further investigation and should follow more sophisticated OAR concepts as already in place for other systems [21, 25]. Additional contouring of bowel loops in close proximity to target volumes may help to define high-dose thresholds.
Due to their physical characteristics, protons have the potential to reduce both irradiated SB volumes in general and the high-dose volumes of moving loops in close proximity to the distal edge of the beam. SB loops with potentially significant interfractional and intrafractional variability may not receive high doses at identical locations and volumes. Mean or low doses to the bowel wall will also differ (Fig. 1).
For example, if 50 % of the bowel circumference were to be inside a high-dose area on the initial planning CT, this might be increased to 100 % (compared to treatment planning CT) by intra-/interfraction variability, but may also receive greatly reduced doses. Therefore, one-time determination of bowel position during treatment planning can only serve as guide of approximate location and thus significantly limits the conclusions to be drawn from this retrospective review. Daily confirmation of bowel loop position using image-guided RT (IGRT) could determine the true SB dose.
However, this report documents that patients tolerated high-dose PT to targets in close proximity to SB exceedingly well. Additionally, it shows that treatment plans suggested that in a large number of patients, SB received noncircumferentially higher radiation doses than presently recommended for conventional photon therapy [21, 25]. Neither history of extensive transabdominal surgery nor long-standing Crohn’s disease resulted in a higher toxicity rate in our patient cohort.
The two advantages of PT, namely high-dose target coverage and increased normal tissue tolerance contribute to the favourable toxicity profile in our patient cohort. This effect will likely be of specific clinically-relevant benefit for patients:
-
a)
with paraspinal/retroperitoneal disease entities requiring high-dose (> 70 Gy) irradiation,
-
b)
with pre-existing bowel damage or chronic inflammatory conditions of intra-abdominal organs [29]. (for which subgroup of patients a safe bowel tolerance level has never been established),
-
c)
with a history of extensive transabdominal surgery resulting in a higher risk of acute and chronic SB toxicity, presumably due to adhesions [9] and those patients
-
d)
undergoing combined chemoradiotherapy at risk for severe acute and chronic grade I side effects.
For technical reasons, all patients with (para)spinal or sacral tumours were treated in the prone position without use of any other bowel-displacing measures, e.g. a belly board or internal surgical displacement. Further investigation with a larger patient cohort should include a discussion of the risk factors [16] and expected changes in SB location associated with using prone or supine positioning for PT.
In our patient cohort, all entrance fields were directed from posterior or posterior-oblique, thereby “ranging out” into SB in many patients and all patients had doses to SB ≥ 60 Gy (RBE). No specific considerations were given to issues of proton range uncertainty or the presence of a high linear energy transfer (LET) component at the end of range. It is therefore of interest that we have not observed any toxicity that could possibly be related to these issues.
Conclusion
Our data demonstrate the ability of PT to deliver curative doses in excess of 70 Gy (RBE) to paraspinal and retroperitoneal tumours (sarcomas) without any higher-grade SB adverse events. Retrospective SB dose calculations based on the initial treatment planning CT scans of 31 patients indicated radiation doses to small noncircumferential volumes of SB well exceeding 60 Gy (RBE) and ≥ 70 Gy (RBE). This experience encourages further efforts to define and establish high-dose threshold models for acute and late SB toxicity in modern radiation oncology.
References
Baglan KL, Frazier RC, Yan D et al (2002) The dose-volume relationship of acute small bowel toxicity from concurrent 5-FU-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:176–183
Bolsi A, Lomax AJ, Pedroni E et al (2008) Experiences at the Paul Scherrer Institute with a remote patient positioning procedure for high-throughput proton radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:1581–1590
Chera BS, Vargas C, Morris CG et al (2009) Dosimetric study of pelvic proton radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 75:994–1002
Classen J, Belka C, Paulsen F et al (1998) Radiation-induced gastrointestinal toxicity. Pathophysiology, approaches to treatment and prophylaxis. Strahlenther Onkol 174(Suppl 3):82–84
Cozzarini C, Fiorino C, Muzio N di et al (2007) Significant reduction of acute toxicity following pelvic irradiation with Helical Tomotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 84:164–170
Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A et al (1991) Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21:109–122
Gueulette J, Blattmann H, Pedroni E et al (2005) Relative biologic effectiveness determination in mouse intestine for scanning proton beam at Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland. Influence of motion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:838–845
Gunnlaugsson A, Kjellen E, Nilsson P et al (2007) Dose-volume relationships between enteritis and irradiated bowel volumes during 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin based chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Acta Oncol 46:937–944
Huang EY, Sung CC, Ko SF et al (2007) The different volume effects of small-bowel toxicity during pelvic irradiation between gynaecologic patients with and without abdominal surgery: a prospective study with computed tomography-based dosimetry. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:732–739
Kaplan E, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation for incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:458–481
Kavanagh BD, Pan CC, Dawson LA et al (2010) Radiation dose-volume effects in the stomach and small bowel. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76(Suppl):101–107
Kölbl O, Richter S, Flentje M (2000) Influence of treatment technique on dose-volume histogram and normal tissue complication probability for small bowel and bladder. A prospective study using a 3-D planning system and a radiobiological model in patients receiving postoperative pelvic irradiation. Strahlenther Onkol 176:105–111
Letschert JG, Lebesque JV, Boer RW de et al (1990) Dose-volume correlation in radiation-related late small-bowel complications: a clinical study. Radiother Oncol 18:307–320
Lomax AJ, Bortfeld T, Goitein G et al (1999) A treatment planning inter-comparison of proton and intensity modulated photon radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 51:257–271
Lomax AJ, Bohringer T, Bolsi A et al (2004) Treatment planning and verification of proton therapy using spot scanning: initial experiences. Med Phys 31:3150–3157
Martin J, Fitzpatrick K, Horan G et al (2005) Treatment with a bellyboard device significantly reduced the volume of small bowel irradiated and results in low acute toxicity in adjuvant radiotherapy for gynecologic cancer: Results of a prospective study. Radiother Oncol 74:267-274
Mendelson RM, Nolan DJ (1985) The radiological features of chronic radiation enteritis. Clin Radiol 36:141–148
O’Brien PH, Jenrette JM 3rd, Garvin AJ (1987) Radiation enteritis. Am Surg 53:501–504
Paganetti H, Niemierko A, Ancukiewicz M et al (2002) Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53:407–421
Paumier A, Le Péchoux C, Beaudré A et al (2011) IMRT or conformal radiotherapy for adjuvant treatment of retroperitoneal sarcoma? Radiother Oncol 99:73–78
Prada PJ, Gonzalez H, Menéndez C et al (2009) Transperineal injection of hyaluronic acid in the anterior perirectal fat to decrease rectal toxicity from radiation delivered with low-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer patients. Brachytherapy 8:210–217
Robertson JM, Lockman D, Yan D et al (2008) The dose-volume relationship of small bowel irradiation and acute grade 3 diarrhea during chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:413–418
Roeske JC, Bonta D, Mell LK et al (2003) A dosimetric analysis of acute gastrointestinal toxicity in women receiving intensity modulated whole-pelvic radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 69:201–207
Staab A, Rutz H-P, Ares C et al (2011) Spot-scanning-based proton therapy for extracranial chordoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:e489–e496
Lin EN van, Kristinsson J, Philippens ME et al (2007) Reduced late rectal mucosal changes after prostate three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with endorectal balloon as observed in repeated endoscopy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67:799–811
Vistad I, Kristensen GB, Fossa SD et al (2009) Intestinal malabsorption in long-term survivors of cervical cancer treated with radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73:1141–1147
Widesott L, Pierelli A, Fiorino C et al (2010) Helical tomotherapy vs. intensity-modulated proton therapy for whole pelvis irradiation in high-risk prostate cancer patients: dosimetric, normal tissue complication probability, and generalized equivalent uniform dose analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 80:1589–1600
Willett CG, Suit HD (1991) Radiation therapy of sarcomas of the soft tissues. Cancer Treat Res 56:61–74
Willett CG, Ooi C-J, Zietman AL et al (2000) Acute and late toxicity of patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing irradiation for abdominal and pelvic neoplasms. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 46:995–998
Yeoh EK, Horowitz M (1987) Radiation enteritis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 165:373–379
Compliance with ethical guidelines
Conflict of interest. R.A. Schneider, V. Vitolo, F. Albertini, T. Koch, C. Ares, A. Lomax, G. Goitein and E.B. Hug state that there are no conflicts of interest.
The accompanying manuscript does not include studies on humans or animals.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schneider, R., Vitolo, V., Albertini, F. et al. Small bowel toxicity after high dose spot scanning-based proton beam therapy for paraspinal/retroperitoneal neoplasms. Strahlenther Onkol 189, 1020–1025 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-013-0432-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-013-0432-0