Proton beam therapy: the context, future direction and challenges become clearer

Clinical Trials Radiographers identifying priority challenges associated with implementing a national programme of clinical trials in the United Kingdom's first proton beam therapy centre

Objectives

This article is an evaluation of the current trial processes within a national proton beam therapy (PBT) clinical trial service in the United Kingdom. The work within the article identifies priority challenges associated with the implementation of PBT trials with a view to improving patient trial processes.

Methods

The nominal group technique (NGT) was used. Five Clinical Trials Radiographers were asked the target question "what are the major challenges when implementing PBT clinical trials and facilitating PBT trial-related activities?" Participants individually and silently listed their challenges to the target question. Following this, group discussion clarified and refined responses. Participants then individually selected five challenges that they deemed most pertinent to the target question, giving a weighted score (out of 10). Individual scores were combined to provide a ranked, weighted order of challenges. Further group discussion identified improvement strategies to the highest scored challenges.

Results

After combining lists generated by participants, 59 challenges were identified. Group discussion eliminated 27 responses. Eighteen were merged, resulting in 14 challenges. The two challenges that ranked highest were: (i) lack of initial understanding of the responsibilities of teams and who the relevant stakeholders were, and (ii) that a national PBT service requires the provision of shared care across multi-disciplinary teams and sites. Improvement areas include the development of shared protocols, clarifying stakeholder responsibilities and improving communication between centres to streamline PBT trial processes.

Conclusions

This work has identified priority areas requiring development to improve the conduct of a national PBT clinical trials programme.

Advances in knowledge

This is the first publication to evaluate current clinical trial processes for the United Kingdom's PBT service.

Implementation of Machine Learning Models to Ensure Radiotherapy Quality for Multicenter Clinical Trials: Report from a Phase III Lung Cancer Study

The outcome of the patient and the success of clinical trials involving RT is dependent on the quality assurance of the RT plans. Knowledge-based Planning (KBP) models using data from a library of high-quality plans have been utilized in radiotherapy to guide treatment. In this study, we report on the use of these machine learning tools to guide the quality assurance of multicenter clinical trial plans. The data from 130 patients submitted to RTOG1308 were included in this study. Fifty patient cases were used to train separate photon and proton models on a commercially available platform based on principal component analysis. Models evaluated 80 patient cases. Statistical comparisons were made between the KBP plans and the original plans submitted for quality evaluation. Both photon and proton KBP plans demonstrate a statistically significant improvement of quality in terms of organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing. Proton KBP plans, a relatively emerging technique, show more improvements compared with photon plans. The KBP proton model is a useful tool for creating proton plans that adhere to protocol requirements. The KBP tool was also shown to be a useful tool for evaluating the quality of RT plans in the multicenter clinical trial setting.

Estimating the percentage of patients who might benefit from proton beam therapy instead of X-ray radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

High-energy Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) commenced in England in 2018 and NHS England commissions PBT for 1.5% of patients receiving radical radiotherapy. We sought expert opinion on the level of provision.

METHODS

Invitations were sent to 41 colleagues working in PBT, most at one UK centre, to contribute by completing a spreadsheet. 39 responded: 23 (59%) completed the spreadsheet; 16 (41%) declined, arguing that clinical outcome data are lacking, but joined six additional site-specialist oncologists for two consensus meetings. The spreadsheet was pre-populated with incidence data from Cancer Research UK and radiotherapy use data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. 'Mechanisms of Benefit' of reduced growth impairment, reduced toxicity, dose escalation and reduced second cancer risk were examined.

RESULTS

The most reliable figure for percentage of radical radiotherapy patients likely to benefit from PBT was that agreed by 95% of the 23 respondents at 4.3%, slightly larger than current provision. The median was 15% (range 4-92%) and consensus median 13%. The biggest estimated potential benefit was from reducing toxicity, median benefit to 15% (range 4-92%), followed by dose escalation median 3% (range 0 to 47%); consensus values were 12 and 3%. Reduced growth impairment and reduced second cancer risk were calculated to benefit 0.5% and 0.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The most secure estimate of percentage benefit was 4.3% but insufficient clinical outcome data exist for confident estimates. The study supports the NHS approach of using the evidence base and developing it through randomised trials, non-randomised studies and outcomes tracking.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Less is known about the percentage of patients who may benefit from PBT than is generally acknowledged. Expert opinion varies widely. Insufficient clinical outcome data exist to provide robust estimates. Considerable further work is needed to address this, including international collaboration; much is already underway but will take time to provide mature data.

A Novel Model and Infrastructure for Clinical Outcomes Data Collection and Their Systematic Evaluation for UK Patients Receiving Proton Beam Therapy

AIMS

To establish an infrastructure for sustainable, comprehensive data collection and systematic outcomes evaluation for UK patients receiving proton beam therapy (PBT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Proton Outcomes Working Group was formed in 2014 to develop a national minimum dataset for PBT patients and to define a clinically integrated informatics solution for data collection. The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre formed its Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit in 2018 to collect, curate and analyse outcomes data prospectively for UK-treated patients and retrospectively for UK patients referred abroad for PBT since 2008 via the Proton Overseas Programme (POP).

RESULTS

A single electronic form (eForm) was developed to capture the agreed data, using a data tree approach including conditional logic: data items are requested once, further questions depend on previous answers and are sensitive to tumour site and patient pathway time point. Relevant data automatically populate other forms, saving time, prompting completeness of clinical assessments and ensuring data consistency. Completed eForm data populate the electronic patient record and generate individualised outputs, including consultation letters, treatment summary and surveillance plans, based on organs at risk irradiated, age and sex. All data regarding POP-treated patients are verified and migrated into the system, ensuring that patient data, whether overseas or UK treated, are consistently recorded. The eForm utilises a 'user friendly' web portal interface, the Clinical Web Portal, including clickable tables and infographics. Data items are coded to a universally recognised standard comparable with other data systems. Patient-reported outcomes are also integrated, highlighting significant toxicities and prompting a response. Outcomes data can be correlated with dosimetric DICOM data to support radiation dose modelling.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes data from both POP-treated and The Christie-treated patients support long-term care, allow evaluation of PBT efficacy and safety, assist future selection of PBT patients and support hypothesis generation for future clinical trials.

Future technological developments in proton therapy - A predicted technological breakthrough

In the current spectrum of cancer treatments, despite high costs, a lack of robust evidence based on clinical outcomes or technical and radiobiological uncertainties, particle therapy and in particular proton therapy (PT) is rapidly growing. Despite proton therapy being more than fifty years old (first proposed by Wilson in 1946) and more than 220,000 patients having been treated with in 2020, many technological challenges remain and numerous new technical developments that must be integrated into existing systems. This article presents an overview of on-going technical developments and innovations that we felt were most important today, as well as those that have the potential to significantly shape the future of proton therapy. Indeed, efforts have been done continuously to improve the efficiency of a PT system, in terms of cost, technology and delivery technics, and a number of different developments pursued in the accelerator field will first be presented. Significant developments are also underway in terms of transport and spatial resolution achievable with pencil beam scanning, or conformation of the dose to the target: we will therefore discuss beam focusing and collimation issues which are important parameters for the development of these techniques, as well as proton arc therapy. State of the art and alternative approaches to adaptive PT and the future of adaptive PT will finally be reviewed. Through these overviews, we will finally see how advances in these different areas will allow the potential for robust dose shaping in proton therapy to be maximised, probably foreshadowing a future era of maturity for the PT technique.

Skin Toxicity Profile of Photon Radiotherapy versus Proton Beam Therapy in Paediatric and Young Adult Patients with Sarcomas

AIMS

Radiotherapy is key in the management of patients with both Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma. However, there is little evidence in the literature with regards to radiation-induced skin toxicities (RISTs) for patients treated with conventional radiotherapy with X-rays (XRT) or proton beam therapy (PBT) for these two conditions. In the present study we evaluated acute and late RIST in patients treated within European protocols with either PBT or XRT, taking both clinical and dosimetric variables into consideration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 79 paediatric/young adult patients treated with radical radiotherapy (with XRT or PBT) and concurrent chemotherapy. In all cases, radiotherapy was given in conventional fractionation (1.8 Gy/fraction). Acute and late RISTs were registered according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scoring system.

RESULTS

With regards to acute RIST, 47.9% (23/48) of XRT patients and 48.4% (15/31) of PBT patients had acute grade 2/3 toxicity. When it comes to late RIST, 17.5% (7/40 with known toxicity profile) of XRT patients and 29.0% (9/31) of PBT patients had grade 1/2 toxicity. This difference of -11.5% (95% confidence interval -31.2 to 7.9%) in grade 1/2 toxicity between XRT and PBT was not statistically significant (P = 0.25). Regardless of the radiotherapy technique, V30Gy seems a good predictor of acute RIST. Moreover, for the same value of V30Gy, patients who receive PBT may have a higher risk of moderate-severe acute RIST. Perhaps due to the small sample, definitive conclusions on the predictive factors of late RIST could not be drawn.

CONCLUSIONS

No clinically meaningful differences in acute and late RIST were observed between PBT and XRT subgroups. Systematic differences in the modelling of the build-up region may exist between XRT and PBT algorithms, which could make the comparison of dose metrics between techniques potentially biased. A more comprehensive analysis of dosimetric data on larger patient cohorts is needed to elucidate the most relevant skin dose metrics. Dose-effect models of RIST for this unique patient population would be an invaluable tool in radiotherapy plan optimisation.

Proton beam therapy: perspectives on the National Health Service England clinical service and research programme

The UK has an important role in the evaluation of proton beam therapy (PBT) and takes its place on the world stage with the opening of the first National Health Service (NHS) PBT centre in Manchester in 2018, and the second in London coming in 2020. Systematic evaluation of the role of PBT is a key objective. By September 2019, 108 patients had started treatment, 60 paediatric, 19 teenagers and young adults and 29 adults. Obtaining robust outcome data is vital, if we are to understand the strengths and weaknesses of current treatment approaches. This is important in demonstrating when PBT will provide an advantage and when it will not, and in quantifying the magnitude of benefit.The UK also has an important part to play in translational PBT research, and building a research capability has always been the vision. We are perfectly placed to perform translational pre-clinical biological and physical experiments in the dedicated research room in Manchester. The nature of DNA damage from proton irradiation is considerably different from X-rays and this needs to be more fully explored. A better understanding is needed of the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons, especially at the end of the Bragg peak, and of the effects on tumour and normal tissue of PBT combined with conventional chemotherapy, targeted drugs and immunomodulatory agents. These experiments can be enhanced by deterministic mathematical models of the molecular and cellular processes of DNA damage response. The fashion of ultra-high dose rate FLASH irradiation also needs to be explored.

Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy

BACKGROUND

Proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers high-energy radiation to target tumours while sparing surrounding normal tissues. The dosimetric advantages of PBT over traditional photon radiotherapy may be clear but the translation of this benefit into clinically meaningful reductions in toxicities and improved quality-of-life (QoL) needs to be determined. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for generating the highest-level evidence in medicine. The objectives of this systematic review were to provide an overview of published clinical studies evaluating the benefits of PBT, and to examine the methodology used in clinical trials with respect to study design and outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for published clinical studies where PBT was a cancer treatment intervention. All randomised and non-randomised studies, prospective or retrospective, were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

In total, 219 studies were included. Prospective studies comprised 89/219 (41%), and of these, the number of randomised phase II and III trials were 5/89 (6%) and 3/89 (3%) respectively. Of all the phase II and III trials, 18/24 (75%) were conducted at a single PBT centre. Over one-third of authors recommended an increase in length of follow up. Research design and/or findings were poorly reported in 74/89 (83%) of prospective studies. Patient reported outcomes were assessed in only 19/89 (21%) of prospective studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective randomised evidence for PBT is limited. The set-up of national PBT services in several countries provides an opportunity to guide the optimal design of prospective studies, including RCTs, to evaluate the benefits of PBT across various disease sites. Collaboration between PBT centres, both nationally and internationally, would increase potential for the generation of practice changing evidence. There is a need to facilitate and guide the collection and analysis of meaningful outcome data, including late toxicities and patient reported QoL.

Predicting Patient-specific Dosimetric Benefits of Proton Therapy for Skull-base Tumors Using a Geometric Knowledge-based Method

PURPOSE

To predict the organ at risk (OAR) dose levels achievable with proton beam therapy (PBT), solely based on the geometric arrangement of the target volume in relation to the OARs. A comparison with an alternative therapy yields a prediction of the patient-specific benefits offered by PBT. This could enable physicians at hospitals without proton capabilities to make a better-informed referral decision or aid patient selection in model-based clinical trials.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Skull-base tumors were chosen to test the method, owing to their geometric complexity and multitude of nearby OARs. By exploiting the correlations between the dose and distance-to-target in existing PBT plans, the models were independently trained for 6 types of OARs: brainstem, cochlea, optic chiasm, optic nerve, parotid gland, and spinal cord. Once trained, the models could estimate the feasible dose-volume histogram and generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) for OAR structures of new patients. The models were trained using 20 patients and validated using an additional 21 patients. Validation was achieved by comparing the predicted gEUD to that of the actual PBT plan.

RESULTS

The predicted and planned gEUD were in good agreement. Considering all OARs, the prediction error was +1.4 ± 5.1 Gy (mean ± standard deviation), and Pearson's correlation coefficient was 93%. By comparing with an intensity modulated photon treatment plan, the model could classify whether an OAR structure would experience a gain, with a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval: 87%-97%) and specificity of 63% (95% confidence interval: 38%-84%).

CONCLUSIONS

We trained and validated models that could quickly and accurately predict the patient-specific benefits of PBT for skull-base tumors. Similar models could be developed for other tumor sites. Such models will be useful when an estimation of the feasible benefits of PBT is desired but the experience and/or resources required for treatment planning are unavailable.

Radiotherapy response evaluation using FDG PET-CT-established and emerging applications

Radiation therapy is a common component of curative cancer treatment. However, there is a significant incidence of treatment failure. In these cases, salvage surgical options are sometimes appropriate. Accurate assessment of response and early recognition of treatment success or failure is therefore critical to guide treatment decisions and impacts on survival and the morbidity of treatment. Traditionally, treatment response has depended upon the anatomical measurement of disease. However, this may not correlate well with the presence of disease, especially after radiotherapy. Combined positron emission tomography (PET) and CT imaging employs radioactive tracers to identify molecular characteristics of tissues. PET imaging exploits the fact that malignancies have characteristic molecular profiles which differ compared with surrounding tissues. The complementary anatomical and functional information facilitates accurate non-invasive assessment of surrogate biomarkers of disease activity.

Exploiting biological and physical determinants of radiotherapy toxicity to individualize treatment

The recent advances in radiation delivery can improve tumour control probability (TCP) and reduce treatment-related toxicity. The use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in particular can reduce normal tissue toxicity, an objective in its own right, and can allow safe dose escalation in selected cases. Ideally, IMRT should be combined with image guidance to verify the position of the target, since patients, target and organs at risk can move day to day. Daily image guidance scans can be used to identify the position of normal tissue structures and potentially to compute the daily delivered dose. Fundamentally, it is still the tolerance of the normal tissues that limits radiotherapy (RT) dose and therefore tumour control. However, the dose-response relationships for both tumour and normal tissues are relatively steep, meaning that small dose differences can translate into clinically relevant improvements. Differences exist between individuals in the severity of toxicity experienced for a given dose of RT. Some of this difference may be the result of differences between the planned dose and the accumulated dose (DA). However, some may be owing to intrinsic differences in radiosensitivity of the normal tissues between individuals. This field has been developing rapidly, with the demonstration of definite associations between genetic polymorphisms and variation in toxicity recently described. It might be possible to identify more resistant patients who would be suitable for dose escalation, as well as more sensitive patients for whom toxicity could be reduced or avoided. Daily differences in delivered dose have been investigated within the VoxTox research programme, using the rectum as an example organ at risk. In patients with prostate cancer receiving curative RT, considerable daily variation in rectal position and dose can be demonstrated, although the median position matches the planning scan well. Overall, in 10 patients, the mean difference between planned and accumulated rectal equivalent uniform doses was -2.7 Gy (5%), and a dose reduction was seen in 7 of the 10 cases. If dose escalation was performed to take rectal dose back to the planned level, this should increase the mean TCP (as biochemical progression-free survival) by 5%. Combining radiogenomics with individual estimates of DA might identify almost half of patients undergoing radical RT who might benefit from either dose escalation, suggesting improved tumour cure or reduced toxicity or both.

Evaluating competing and emerging technologies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and other advanced radiotherapy techniques

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) refers to the precise irradiation of an image-defined extracranial lesion, using a high total radiation dose delivered in a small number of fractions. A significant proportion of SBRT treatment has been successfully delivered using conventional gantry-based linear accelerators with appropriate image guidance and motion management techniques, although a number of specialist systems are also available. Evaluating the competing SBRT technologies is difficult due to frequent refinements to all major platforms. Comparison of geometric accuracy or treatment planning performance can be hard to interpret and may not provide much useful information. Nevertheless, a general specification overview can provide information that may help radiotherapy providers decide on an appropriate system for their centre. A number of UK randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that better radiotherapy techniques yield better results. RCTs should play an important part in the future evaluation of SBRT, especially where there is a smaller volume of existing data, and where outcomes from conventional radiotherapy are very good. RCT comparison of SBRT with surgery is more difficult due to the radically different treatment arms, although successful recruitment can be possible if the lessons from previous failed trials are learned. The evaluation of new technology poses a number of challenges to the conventional RCT methodology, and there may be situations where it is genuinely not possible, with careful observational studies or decision modelling being more appropriate. Further development in trial design may have an important role in providing clinical evidence in a more timely manner.