A scoping review of patient selection methods for proton therapy

Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Head and Neck Cancer Care: Optimizing Oral Health Management for Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy

Radiation therapy (RT) plays a crucial role in the treatment of head and neck cancers (HNCs). This paper emphasizes the importance of effective communication and collaboration between radiation oncologists and dental specialists in the HNC care pathway. It also provides an overview of the role of RT in HNC treatment and illustrates the interdisciplinary collaboration between these teams to optimize patient care, expedite treatment, and prevent post-treatment oral complications. The methods utilized include a thorough analysis of existing research articles, case reports, and clinical guidelines, with terms such as 'dental management', 'oral oncology', 'head and neck cancer', and 'radiotherapy' included for this review. The findings underscore the significance of the early involvement of dental specialists in the treatment planning phase to assess and prepare patients for RT, including strategies such as prophylactic tooth extraction to mitigate potential oral complications. Furthermore, post-treatment oral health follow-up and management by dental specialists are crucial in minimizing the incidence and severity of RT-induced oral sequelae. In conclusion, these proactive measures help minimize dental and oral complications before, during, and after treatment.

Patients' needs in proton therapy: A survey among ten European facilities

Aims

The number of Proton Therapy (PT) facilities is still limited worldwide, and the access to treatment could be characterized by patients' logistic and economic challenges. Aim of the present survey is to assess the support provided to patients undergoing PT across Europe.

Methods

Through a personnel contact, an online questionnaire (62 multiple-choice and open-ended questions) via Microsoft Forms was administered to 10 European PT centers. The questionnaire consisted of 62 questions divided into 6 sections: i) personal data; ii) general information on clinical activity; iii) fractionation, concurrent systemic treatments and technical aspects of PT facility; iv) indication to PT and reimbursement policies; v) economic and/ or logistic support to patients vi) participants agreement on statements related to the possible limitation of access to PT. A qualitative analysis was performed and reported.

Results

From March to May 2022 all ten involved centers filled the survey. Nine centers treat from 100 to 500 patients per year. Paediatric patients accounted for 10-30%, 30-50% and 50-70% of the entire cohort for 7, 2 and 1 center, respectively. The most frequent tumours treated in adult population were brain tumours, sarcomas and head and neck carcinomas; in all centers, the mean duration of PT is longer than 3 weeks. In 80% of cases, the treatment reimbursement for PT is supplied by the respective country's Health National System (HNS). HNS also provides economic support to patients in 70% of centers, while logistic and meal support is provided in 20% and 40% of centers, respectively. PT facilities offer economic and/or logistic support in 90% of the cases. Logistic support for parents of pediatric patients is provided by HNS only in one-third of centers. Overall, 70% of respondents agree that geographic challenges could limit a patient's access to proton facilities and 60% believe that additional support should be given to patients referred for PT care.

Conclusions

Relevant differences exist among European countries in supporting patients referred to PT in their logistic and economic challenges. Further efforts should be made by HNSs and PT facilities to reduce the risk of inequities in access to cancer care with protons.

Proton arc therapy increases the benefit of proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer patients in the model based clinic

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In the model-based approach, patients qualify for proton therapy when the reduction in risk of toxicity (ΔNTCP) obtained with IMPT relative to VMAT is larger than predefined thresholds as defined by the Dutch National Indication Protocol (NIPP). Proton arc therapy (PAT) is an emerging technology which has the potential to further decrease NTCPs compared to IMPT. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential impact of PAT on the number of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) patients that qualify for proton therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort of 223 OPC patients subjected to the model-based selection procedure was investigated. 33 (15%) patients were considered unsuitable for proton treatment before plan comparison. When IMPT was compared to VMAT for the remaining 190 patients, 148 (66%) patients qualified for protons and 42 (19%) patients did not. For these 42 patients treated with VMAT, robust PAT plans were generated.

RESULTS

PAT plans provided better or similar target coverage compared to IMPT plans. In the PAT plans, integral dose was significantly reduced by 18% relative to IMPT plans and by 54% relative to VMAT plans. PAT decreased the mean dose to numerous organs-at-risk (OARs), further reducing NTCPs. The ΔNTCP for PAT relative to VMAT passed the NIPP thresholds for 32 out of the 42 patients treated with VMAT, resulting in 180 patients (81%) of the complete cohort qualifying for protons.

CONCLUSION

PAT outperforms IMPT and VMAT, leading to a further reduction of NTCP-values and higher ΔNTCP-values, significantly increasing the percentage of OPC patients selected for proton therapy.

The relation between prediction model performance measures and patient selection outcomes for proton therapy in head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP) models predict complication risk in patients receiving radiotherapy, considering radiation dose to healthy tissues, and are used to select patients for proton therapy, based on their expected reduction in risk after proton therapy versus photon radiotherapy (ΔNTCP). Recommended model evaluation measures include area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), overall calibration (CITL), and calibration slope (CS), whose precise relation to patient selection is still unclear. We investigated how each measure relates to patient selection outcomes.

METHODS

The model validation and consequent patient selection process was simulated within empirical head and neck cancer patient data. By manipulating performance measures independently via model perturbations, the relation between model performance and patient selection was studied.

RESULTS

Small reductions in AUC (-0.02) yielded mean changes in ΔNTCP between 0.9-3.2 %, and single-model patient selection differences between 2-19 %. Deviations (-0.2 or +0.2) in CITL or CS yielded mean changes in ΔNTCP between 0.3-1.4 %, and single-model patient selection differences between 1-10 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Each measure independently impacts ΔNTCP and patient selection and should thus be assessed in a representative sufficiently large external sample. Our suggested practical model selection approach is considering the model with the highest AUC, and recalibrating it if needed.

Can We Compare the Health-Related Quality of Life of Childhood Cancer Survivors Following Photon and Proton Radiation Therapy? A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

Proton radiation therapy is a radiation oncology innovation expected to produce superior health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes for children with cancer, compared to conventional photon radiation therapy. The review aim is to identify if clinical evidence exists to support the anticipated HRQoL improvements for children receiving proton radiation therapy. HRQoL outcomes of 1986 childhood cancer survivors are described. There is insufficient quality evidence to compare HRQoL outcomes between proton and photon radiation therapy. Therefore, the current state of the literature does not conclude that proton radiation therapy produces superior HRQoL outcomes for childhood cancer survivors. Despite recommendations, no evidence of routine HRQoL assessment using patient-reported outcomes in paediatric radiation oncology are identified. Further rigorous collection and reporting of HRQoL data is essential to improve patient outcomes, and to adequately compare HRQoL between radiation therapy modalities.

Abstract

Paediatric cancer patients have a risk of late side effects after curative treatment. Proton radiation therapy (PRT) has the potential to reduce the incidence and severity of toxicities produced by conventional photon radiation therapy (XRT), which may improve the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children. This systematic review aimed to identify the evidence of HRQoL outcomes in childhood cancer survivors following XRT and PRT. Medline, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched. Thirty studies were analysed, which described outcomes of 1986 childhood cancer survivors. Most studies (n = 24) described outcomes for children with a central nervous system (CNS) tumour, four studies reported outcomes for children with a non-CNS tumour, and two studies combined CNS and non-CNS diagnoses within a single cohort. No studies analysed routine HRQoL collection during paediatric radiation oncology clinical practice. There is insufficient quality evidence to compare HRQoL outcomes between XRT and PRT. Therefore, the current state of the literature does not conclude that PRT produces superior HRQoL outcomes for childhood cancer survivors. Standardised clinical implementation of HRQoL assessment using patient-reported outcomes is recommended to contribute to improvements in clinical care whilst assisting the progression of knowledge comparing XRT and PRT.

Outcomes and Toxicities of Nonmedullary Thyroid Tumors Treated with Proton Beam Radiation Therapy

Purpose

Proton therapy is an emerging therapy for several malignancies owing to its favorable therapeutic ratio. There are very limited data on the use of proton therapy in the management of thyroid carcinoma. Our objective was to review the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of proton therapy for patients with thyroid cancer treated to the head and neck.

Methods

From our institution's proton database from 2012 to 2021, we identified 22 patients with thyroid cancer treated with proton beam therapy. We evaluated outcomes and toxicities.

Results

Median follow-up was 26 months. Of the 22 patients, 50% were female. The mean age was 65 years. Three patients had anaplastic cancer; 13, papillary carcinoma; 2, follicular carcinoma; and 2, poorly differentiated carcinoma. Forty-six percent had T4 disease. Primary targets were the central neck compartment, level VI, and upper mediastinum. Radiation dose was 60 GyRBE adjuvantly, and 70 GyRBE for gross disease (range, 6000-7600 GyRBE). Eight patients underwent upfront adjuvant radiation, and 3 received definitive radiation for unresectable disease upfront. Eleven patients received either salvage or palliative radiation. Fifty-nine percent of patients had extrathyroidal extension, and 64% of patients had gross disease in the neck before treatment. Fifty percent of patients had metastatic disease before treatment. Sixteen patients received concurrent chemotherapy, 63% of these patients received doxorubicin. For all patients, 1-year local regional recurrence (LRR) was 0%, and overall survival (OS) was 90%. Acute grade 3+ toxicities occurred in 27% of patients, the most frequent being dermatitis (27%). Three patients required a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube after radiation therapy (RT), 2 owing to progression. There were no grade 4+ toxicities.

Conclusions

Proton therapy for thyroid cancer appears feasible and effective with minimal toxicities. Prospective studies comparing proton therapy with intensity-modulated RT, to evaluate the clinical efficacy of using proton therapy to reduce toxicities in patients undergoing radiation for thyroid cancer, are warranted.