Intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy as a radical treatment modality for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Markov models for clinical decision-making in radiation oncology: A systematic review

The intrinsic stochasticity of patients' response to treatment is a major consideration for clinical decision-making in radiation therapy. Markov models are powerful tools to capture this stochasticity and render effective treatment decisions. This paper provides an overview of the Markov models for clinical decision analysis in radiation oncology. A comprehensive literature search was conducted within MEDLINE using PubMed, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies published from 2000 to 2023 were considered. Selected publications were summarized in two categories: (i) studies that compare two (or more) fixed treatment policies using Monte Carlo simulation and (ii) studies that seek an optimal treatment policy through Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). Relevant to the scope of this study, 61 publications were selected for detailed review. The majority of these publications (n = 56) focused on comparative analysis of two or more fixed treatment policies using Monte Carlo simulation. Classifications based on cancer site, utility measures and the type of sensitivity analysis are presented. Five publications considered MDPs with the aim of computing an optimal treatment policy; a detailed statement of the analysis and results is provided for each work. As an extension of Markov model-based simulation analysis, MDP offers a flexible framework to identify an optimal treatment policy among a possibly large set of treatment policies. However, the applications of MDPs to oncological decision-making have been understudied, and the full capacity of this framework to render complex optimal treatment decisions warrants further consideration.

Current Status and Future Directions of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Carcinoma

The growing interest in proton therapy (PT) in recent decades is justified by the evidence that protons dose distribution allows maximal dose release at the tumor depth followed by sharp distal dose fall-off. But, in the holistic management of head and neck cancer (HNC), limiting the potential of PT to a mere dosimetric advantage appears reductive. Indeed, the precise targeting of PT may help evaluate the effectiveness of de-escalation strategies, especially for patients with human papillomavirus associated-oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) and nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). Furthermore, PT could have potentially greater immunogenic effects than conventional photon therapy, possibly enhancing both the radiotherapy (RT) capability to activate anti-tumor immune response and the effectiveness of immunotherapy drugs. Based on these premises, the aim of the present paper is to conduct a narrative review reporting the safety and efficacy of PT compared to photon RT focusing on NPC and OPC. We also provide a snapshot of ongoing clinical trials comparing PT with photon RT for these two clinical scenarios. Finally, we discuss new insights that may further develop clinical research on PT for HNC.

Assessing the Impact of Charged Particle Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Head and neck adenoid cystic carcinoma (HNACC) is a radioresistant tumor. Particle therapy, primarily proton beam therapy and carbon-ion radiation, is a potential radiotherapy treatment for radioresistant malignancies. This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of charged particle radiation therapy on HNACC. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline until December 31, 2022. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary outcomes included treatment-related toxicity. Version 17.0 of STATA was used for all analyses. Results: A total of 14 studies, involving 1297 patients, were included in the analysis. The pooled 5-year OS and PFS rates for primary HNACC were 78% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 66-91%) and 62% (95% CI = 47-77%), respectively. For all patients included, the pooled 2-year and 5-year OS, LC, and PFS rates were as follows: 86.1% (95% CI = 95-100%) and 77% (95% CI = 73-82%), 92% (95% CI = 84-100%) and 73% (95% CI = 61-85%), and 76% (95% CI = 68-84%) and 55% (95% CI = 48-62%), respectively. The rates of grade 3 and above acute toxicity were 22% (95% CI = 13-32%), while late toxicity rates were 8% (95% CI = 3-13%). Conclusions: Particle therapy has the potential to improve treatment outcomes and raise the quality of life for HNACC patients. However, further research and optimization are needed due to the limited availability and cost considerations associated with this treatment modality.

Particle beam therapy for nasopharyngeal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

•

Particle beam therapy yields excellent short-term treatment outcomes among NPC patients.

•

Particle beam therapy is generally safe in primary and recurrent NPC patients, with ≥G3 late toxicity rates of 20 % or less.

•

An approximately 5% mortality rate was reported among recurrent NPC patients.

Background/purpose

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to better understand the benefits of particle beam therapy for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) treatment. The survival outcomes and toxicity of primary and recurrent NPC patients treated with proton or carbon ion beam therapy were investigated.

Method

PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched between 1 January 2007 to 3 November 2021. The inclusion and exclusion criteria included studies with either primary or recurrent NPC patients, sample size of ≥10 patients, and proton or carbon ion beam therapy as interventions. Twenty-six eligible studies with a total of 1502 patients were included. We used a random-effect meta-analysis to examine the impact of particle beam therapy on primary NPC patients and qualitatively described the results among recurrent patients. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), while secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), local control (LC) and toxicity.

Results

The pooled OS at 1-year, 2-year and 3-year and 5-year for primary NPC patients who received particle beam therapy were 96 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) = 92 %-98 %), 93 % (95 % CI = 83 %-97 %), 90 % (95 % CI = 73 %-97 %) and 73 % (95 % CI = 52 %-87 %) respectively. The pooled 1-year and 2-year PFS, and LC for these patients were above 90 %. For locally recurrent NPC patients, the 1-year OS rate ranged from 65 % to 92 %, while the 1-year LC rate ranged from 80 % to 88 %. Both proton and carbon ion beam therapy were generally safe among primary and recurrent patients, with ≥G3 late toxicity rates of 20 % or less. Approximately a 5 % mortality rate was reported among recurrent patients.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated particle beam therapy has great potential in treating NPC, yielding excellent survival outcomes with low toxicity. However, further investigations are needed to assess the long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of this newer form of radiotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of using protons for breast irradiation aiming at minimizing cardiotoxicity: A risk-stratification analysis

Background

Incidental exposure of the heart to ionizing irradiation is associated with an increased risk of ischemic heart disease and subsequent fatality in patients with breast cancer after radiotherapy. Proton beam therapy can limit the heart dose in breast irradiation to a negligible level. However, compared with conventional photon modality, proton breast irradiation is more expensive. In this study, we performed cost-effectiveness analyses to identify the type of patients who would be more suitable for protons.

Methods

A Markov decision model was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of protons vs. photons in reducing the risk of irradiation-related ischemic heart disease. A baseline evaluation was performed on a 50-year-old woman patient without the preexisting cardiac risk factor. Furthermore, risk-stratification analyses for photon mean heart dose and preexisting cardiac risk were conducted on 40-, 50-, and 60-year-old women patients under different proton cost and willingness-to-pay (WTP) settings.

Results

Using the baseline settings, the incremental effectiveness (protons vs. photons) increased from 0.043 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) to 0.964 QALY when preexisting cardiac risk increased to 10 times its baseline level. At a proton cost of 50,000 US dollars ($), protons could be cost-effective for ≤ 60-year-old patients with diabetes and ≤50-year-old patients with grade II–III hypertension at the WTP of China ($37,653/QALY); for ≤ 60-year-old patients with diabetes and ≤ 50-year-old patients with grade II–III hypertension or ≥ 2 major cardiac risk factors at a WTP of $50,000/QALY; and for ≤ 60-year-old patients with diabetes, grade II–III hypertension or ≥ 2 major cardiac risk factors and ≤ 50-year-old patients with total cholesterol ≥ 240 mg/dL at a WTP of $100,000/QALY.

Conclusion

Patients' preexisting cardiac risk status was a key factor affecting the cardiac benefits gained from protons and should therefore be a major consideration for the clinical decision of using protons; cost-effective scenarios of protons exist in those patients with high risk of developing cardiac diseases.