Hypofractionated proton therapy in breast cancer: where are we? A critical review of the literature

A multicenter high-quality data registry for advanced proton therapy approaches: the POWER registry

BACKGROUND

Paucity and low evidence-level data on proton therapy (PT) represent one of the main issues for the establishment of solid indications in the PT setting. Aim of the present registry, the POWER registry, is to provide a tool for systematic, prospective, harmonized, and multidimensional high-quality data collection to promote knowledge in the field of PT with a particular focus on the use of hypofractionation.

METHODS

All patients with any type of oncologic disease (benign and malignant disease) eligible for PT at the European Institute of Oncology (IEO), Milan, Italy, will be included in the present registry. Three levels of data collection will be implemented: Level (1) clinical research (patients outcome and toxicity, quality of life, and cost/effectiveness analysis); Level (2) radiological and radiobiological research (radiomic and dosiomic analysis, as well as biological modeling); Level (3) biological and translational research (biological biomarkers and genomic data analysis). Endpoints and outcome measures of hypofractionation schedules will be evaluated in terms of either Treatment Efficacy (tumor response rate, time to progression/percentages of survivors/median survival, clinical, biological, and radiological biomarkers changes, identified as surrogate endpoints of cancer survival/response to treatment) and Toxicity. The study protocol has been approved by the IEO Ethical Committee (IEO 1885). Other than patients treated at IEO, additional PT facilities (equipped with Proteus®ONE or Proteus®PLUS technologies by IBA, Ion Beam Applications, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) are planned to join the registry data collection. Moreover, the registry will be also fully integrated into international PT data collection networks.

Exploring Helium Ions' Potential for Post-Mastectomy Left-Sided Breast Cancer Radiotherapy

Proton therapy presents a promising modality for treating left-sided breast cancer due to its unique dose distribution. Helium ions provide increased conformality thanks to a reduced lateral scattering. Consequently, the potential clinical benefit of both techniques was explored. An explorative treatment planning study involving ten patients, previously treated with VMAT (Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) for 50 Gy in 25 fractions for locally advanced, node-positive breast cancer, was carried out using proton pencil beam therapy with a fixed relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1 and helium therapy with a variable RBE described by the mMKM (modified microdosimetric kinetic model). Results indicated that target coverage was improved with particle therapy for both the clinical target volume and especially the internal mammary lymph nodes compared to VMAT. Median dose value analysis revealed that proton and helium plans provided lower dose on the left anterior descending artery (LAD), heart, lungs and right breast than VMAT. Notably, helium therapy exhibited improved ipsilateral lung sparing over protons. Employing NTCP models as available in the literature, helium therapy showed a lower probability of grade ≤ 2 radiation pneumonitis (22% for photons, 5% for protons and 2% for helium ions), while both proton and helium ions reduce the probability of major coronary events with respect to VMAT.

Proton Beam Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

Adjuvant proton beam therapy (PBT) is increasingly available to patients with breast cancer. It achieves better planned dose distributions than standard photon radiation therapy and therefore may reduce the risks. However, clinical evidence is lacking.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A systematic review of clinical outcomes from studies of adjuvant PBT for early breast cancer published in 2000 to 2022 was undertaken. Early breast cancer was defined as when all detected invasive cancer cells are in the breast or nearby lymph nodes and can be removed surgically. Adverse outcomes were summarized quantitatively, and the prevalence of the most common ones were estimated using meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies (1452 patients) reported clinical outcomes after adjuvant PBT for early breast cancer. Median follow-up ranged from 2 to 59 months. There were no published randomized trials comparing PBT with photon radiation therapy. Scattering PBT was delivered in 7 studies (258 patients) starting 2003 to 2015 and scanning PBT in 22 studies (1041 patients) starting 2000 to 2019. Two studies (123 patients) starting 2011 used both PBT types. For 1 study (30 patients), PBT type was unspecified. Adverse events were less severe after scanning than after scattering PBT. They also varied by clinical target. For partial breast PBT, 498 adverse events were reported (8 studies, 358 patients). None were categorized as severe after scanning PBT. For whole breast or chest wall ± regional lymph nodes PBT, 1344 adverse events were reported (19 studies, 933 patients). After scanning PBT, 4% (44/1026) of events were severe. The most prevalent severe outcome after scanning PBT was dermatitis, which occurred in 5.7% (95% confidence interval, 4.2-7.6) of patients. Other severe adverse outcomes included infection, pain, and pneumonitis (each ≤1%). Of the 141 reconstruction events reported (13 studies, 459 patients), the most prevalent after scanning PBT was prosthetic implant removal (34/181, 19%).

CONCLUSIONS

This is a quantitative summary of all published clinical outcomes after adjuvant PBT for early breast cancer. Ongoing randomized trials will provide information on its longer-term safety compared with standard photon radiation therapy.

Real-time deep neural network-based automatic bowel gas segmentation on X-ray images for particle beam treatment

Since particle beam distribution is vulnerable to change in bowel gas because of its low density, we developed a deep neural network (DNN) for bowel gas segmentation on X-ray images. We used 6688 image datasets from 209 cases as training data, 736 image datasets from 23 cases as validation data and 102 image datasets from 51 cases as test data (total 283 cases). For the training data, we prepared three types of digitally reconstructed radiographic (DRR) images (all-density, bone and gas) by projecting the treatment planning CT image data. However, the real X-ray images acquired in the treatment room showed low contrast that interfered with manual delineation of bowel gas. Therefore, we used synthetic X-ray images converted from DRR images in addition to real X-ray images.We evaluated DNN segmentation accuracy for the synthetic X-ray images using Intersection over Union, recall, precision, and the Dice coefficient, which measured 0.708 ± 0.208, 0.832 ± 0.170, 0.799 ± 0.191, and 0.807 ± 0.178, respectively. The evaluation metrics for the real X-images were less accurate than those for the synthetic X-ray images (0.408 ± 0237, 0.685 ± 0.326, 0.490 ± 0272, and 0.534 ± 0.271, respectively). Computation time was 29.7 ± 1.3 ms/image. Our DNN appears useful in increasing treatment accuracy in particle beam therapy.

Contralateral breast radiation doses in breast cancer patients treated with helical tomotherapy

We aimed to evaluate contralateral breast doses calculated with a Treatment Planning System (TPS) and verified with metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) detectors in patients with early-stage breast cancer (BC) who received helical tomotherapy (HT) after breast-conserving surgery. The dosimetric data of 30 patients (15 left-sided and 15 right-sided) with BC treated with 50.4 Gy to the whole breast and 64.4 Gy to the tumor bed in 28 fractions were analyzed. TPS doses were calculated and MOSFET doses were measured in the contralateral breast (CB) at cranial, caudal, and midpoint and 2 cm lateral to the central point. TPS and MOSFET doses were compared in the entire cohort as well as by tumor location (inner vs outer quadrant) and planning target volume of the breast (<1200 cc vs ≥1200 cc). The average doses at superior, inferior, central, and lateral points calculated with the TPS were 0.26 ± 0.15 cGy, 0.21 ± 0.09 cGy, 0.65 ± 0.14 cGy, and 0.50 ± 0.11 cGy, respectively, and were 0.37 ± 0.16 cGy, 0.34 ± 0.12 cGy, 0.60 ± 0.18 cGy, and 0.34 ± 0.15 cGy, respectively in MOSFET readings. Except for the central point, TPS-calculated doses and MOSFET readings were differed. The doses to the CB in patients with inner and outer quadrant tumors were not significantly different. In patients with large breasts, MOSFET doses were higher at superior and lateral points than TPS doses, but TPS doses were greater at inferior points. MOSFET readings were higher than TPS calculated doses in patients with inner or outer quadrant tumors in small or large breast volumes. The dose calculated by the TPS and that measured by MOSFET differed by a very small amount. The maximum dose to the CB administered at the midpoint was 1.8 Gy, as calculated using the TPS and confirmed using MOSFET detectors, in patients with early-stage BC undergoing breast-only radiotherapy with HT.