A retrospective comparison of proton therapy and carbon ion therapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer

A meta-analysis comparing efficacy and safety between proton beam therapy versus carbon ion radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of proton beam therapy (PBT) and carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) by a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing clinical evidence.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies comparing the clinical outcomes of PBT and CIRT. The included studies were required to report oncological outcomes (local control [LC], progression-free survival [PFS], or overall survival [OS]) or adverse events.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles comprising 1857 patients (947 treated with PBT and 910 treated with CIRT) were included in the analysis. The pooled analysis conducted for the overall population yielded average hazard ratios of 0.690 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.493-0.967, p = 0.031) for LC, 0.952 (95% CI, 0.604-1.500, p = 0.590) for PFS, and 1.183 (0.872-1.607, p = 0.281) for OS with reference to CIRT. The subgroup analyses included patients treated in the head and neck, areas other than the head and neck, and patients with chordomas and chondrosarcomas. These analyses revealed no significant differences in most outcomes, except for LC in the subgroup of patients treated in areas other than the head and neck. Adverse event rates were comparable in both groups, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.097 (95% CI, 0.744-1.616, p = 0.641). Meta-regression analysis for possible heterogeneity did not demonstrate a significant association between treatment outcomes and the ratio of biologically effective doses between modalities.

CONCLUSION

This study highlighted the comparability of PBT and CIRT in terms of oncological outcomes and adverse events.

Proton and Carbon Ion Radiation Therapy Decreased Severe Lymphopenia by Reducing Thoracic Vertebra and Aortic Doses in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

Lymphopenia is a common adverse effect of radiation therapy (RT). Little is known about the difference in lymphopenia between intensity modulated (photon) radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton and carbon ion radiation therapy (PCIRT). This study aimed to investigate lymphopenia differences between IMRT and PCIRT in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Clinical and dosimetric parameters were collected from 343 patients who received definitive IMRT or PCIRT for NSCLC. Severe lymphopenia (SRL) was defined as an absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) ≤0.5 × 10³ cells/μL. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Propensity score matching was performed between the IMRT and PCIRT groups. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator analysis was used to select appropriate dosimetric parameters. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify the predictors of SRL.

RESULTS

Compared with the IMRT group, the PCIRT group was less likely to develop SRL (P < .001). Compared with the non-SRL group, the SRL group showed significant association with poorer OS, with a median survival time of 29.2 versus 15.0 months (P = .046). IMRT was an independent risk factor of SRL (P = .004). A lower ALC before RT (P = .030) and larger planning target volume (PTV) (P = .002) were also significant independent risk factors for SRL. Moreover, the majority of dosimetric parameters of organs at risk in PCIRT were lower than those in IMRT (P < .001). Thoracic vertebra V5 (P = .002) and aorta V5 (P = .026) were identified as independent risk predictors of SRL after adding dosimetric parameters to the regression model.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with IMRT, PCIRT could reduce SRL incidence, possibly by limiting thoracic vertebra and aortic doses, and SRL was associated with poor outcomes in patients with NSCLC.

Particle Therapy: Clinical Applications and Biological Effects

Particle therapy is a developing area of radiotherapy, mostly involving the use of protons, neutrons and carbon ions for cancer treatment. The reduction of side effects on healthy tissues in the peritumoral area is an important advantage of particle therapy. In this review, we analyze state-of-the-art particle therapy, as compared to conventional photon therapy, to identify clinical benefits and specify the mechanisms of action on tumor cells. Systematization of published data on particle therapy confirms its successful application in a wide range of cancers and reveals a variety of biological effects which manifest at the molecular level and produce the particle therapy-specific molecular signatures. Given the rapid progress in the field, the use of particle therapy holds great promise for the near future.

Particle therapy toxicity outcomes: A systematic review

Owing to its physical properties, particle therapy (PT), including proton beam therapy (PBT) and carbon ion therapy (CIT), can enhance the therapeutic ratio in radiation therapy. The major factor driving PT implementation is the reduction in exit and integral dose compared to photon plans, which is expected to translate to reduced toxicity and improved quality of life. This study extends the findings from a recent systematic review by the current authors which concentrated on tumour outcomes for PT, to now examine toxicity as a separate focus. Together, these reviews provide a comprehensive collation of the evidence relating to PT outcomes in clinical practice. Three major databases were searched by two independent researchers, and evidence quality was classified according to the National Health and Medical Research Council evidence hierarchy. One hundred and seventy-nine studies were included. Most demonstrated acceptable and favourable toxicity results. Comparative evidence reported reduced morbidities and improvement in quality of life in head and neck, paediatrics, sarcomas, adult central nervous system, gastrointestinal, ocular and prostate cancers compared to photon radiotherapy. This suggestion for reduced morbidity must be counterbalanced by the overall low quality of evidence. A concerted effort in the design of appropriate comparative clinical trials is needed which takes into account integration of PT's pace of technological advancements, including evolving delivery techniques, image guidance availability and sophistication of planning algorithms.

Physical advantages of particles: protons and light ions

Proton and ion beam therapy has been introduced in the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the mid-1950s, when protons and helium ions have been used for the first time to treat patients. Starting in 1972, the scientists at Berkeley also were the first to use heavier ions (carbon, oxygen, neon, silicon and argon ions). The first clinical ion beam facility opened in 1994 in Japan and since then, the interest in radiotherapy with light ion beams has been increasing slowly but steadily, with 13 centers in clinical operation in 2019. All these centers are using carbon ions for clinical application.The article outlines the differences in physical properties of various light ions as compared to protons in view of the application in radiotherapy. These include the energy loss and depth dose properties, multiple scattering, range straggling and nuclear fragmentation. In addition, the paper discusses differences arising from energy loss and linear energy transfer with respect to their biological effects.Moreover, the paper reviews briefly the existing clinical data comparing protons and ions and outlines the future perspectives for the clinical use of ions like oxygen and helium.

Particle therapy in non-small cell lung cancer

The finite range of proton beams in tissues offers unique dosimetric advantages that theoretically allow the dose to the target to be escalated while minimizing exposure of surrounding tissues and thereby minimizing radiation-induced toxicity. These theoretical advantages have led to widespread adoption of proton therapy around the world for a wide variety of tumors at different anatomic sites. Many treatment-planning comparisons have shown that proton therapy has substantial dosimetric advantages over conventional photon (X-ray) radiation therapy. However, given the typically significant difference in cost between proton therapy versus conventional photon therapy, strong evidence of proton therapy's clinical benefits in terms of toxicity and survival is warranted. Some findings from retrospective studies, single-arm prospective studies, and a very few randomized clinical trials comparing these modalities are beginning to emerge. In this review, we examine the available data on proton therapy for (non-small cell lung cancer NSCLC). We begin by discussing the unique challenges involved in treating moving targets with significant tissue heterogeneity and the technologic efforts underway to overcome these challenges. We then discuss the rationale for minimizing normal tissue toxicity, particularly pulmonary, cardiac, and hematologic toxicity, within the context of previously unsuccessful attempts at dose escalation for lung cancer. Finally, we explore strategies for accelerating the development of trials aimed at measuring meaningful clinical endpoints and for maximizing the value of proton therapy by personalizing its use for individual patients.

Approaches to stereotactic body radiation therapy for large (≥5 centimeter) non-small cell lung cancer

Although larger (≥5 cm) node-negative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) lesions are altogether uncommon, their incidence may increase following the implementation of lung cancer screening. A rigorous assessment of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for these challenging cases is imperative not only owing to concerns of increased risks when delivering ablative doses to large volumes, but also due to lack of prospective data, as these patients were excluded from seminal phase II SBRT trials. In addition to appraising the available institutional or multi-institutional experiences, multiple strategies to reduce toxicities are discussed. These include exploration of several different dose/fractionation schemes and regimens, as well as specialized techniques for SBRT treatment planning and delivery. Because these lesions have a higher rate of occult lymphatic or distant spread, the role of systemic therapies (including chemotherapy and immunotherapy) are also discussed. Altogether, the publication of several key reports, entirely over the last few years, has created a more solid foundation with which to utilize evidence-based management for this unique patient population.

Comparison of particle beam therapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy for early stage non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and hypothesis-generating meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess hypo-fractionated particle beam therapy (PBT)'s efficacy relative to that of photon stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for early stage (ES) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified through extensive searches of the PubMed, Medline, Google-scholar, and Cochrane library databases from 2000 to 2016. Original English publications of ES NSCLC were included. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival outcome, toxicity profile, and patterns of failure following each treatment.

RESULTS

72 SBRT studies and 9 hypo-fractionated PBT studies (mostly single-arm) were included. PBT was associated with improved overall survival (OS; p=0.005) and progression-free survival (PFS; p=0.01) in the univariate meta-analysis. The OS benefit did not reach its statistical significance after inclusion of operability into the final multivariate meta-analysis (p=0.11); while the 3-year local control (LC) still favored PBT (p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Although hypo-fractionated PBT may lead to additional clinical benefit when compared with photon SBRT, no statistically significant survival benefit from PBT over SBRT was observed in the treatment of ES NSCLC in this hypothesis-generating meta-analysis after adjusting for potential confounding variables.

A Dose Escalation Clinical Trial of Single-Fraction Carbon Ion Radiotherapy for Peripheral Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to report initial results of a dose escalation trial of single-fraction carbon ion radiotherapy for peripheral stage I NSCLC.

METHODS

Between April 2003 and February 2012, a total of 218 patients were treated. The total dose was raised from 28 to 50 Gy (relative biological effectiveness [RBE]). There were 157 male and 61 female patients, with a median age of 75 years. Of the tumors, 123 were stage T1 and 95 were stage T2. A total of 134 patients (61.5%) were medically inoperable. By histological type, there were 146 adenocarcinomas, 68 squamous cell carcinomas, three large cell carcinomas, and one mucoepidermoid carcinoma.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 57.8 months (range 1.6-160.7). The overall survival rate at 5 years was 49.4%. The local control (LC) rate was 72.7%. A statistically significant difference in LC rate (p = 0.0001, log-rank test) was seen between patients receiving 36 Gy (RBE) or more and those receiving less than 36 Gy (RBE). In 20 patients irradiated with 48 to 50 Gy (RBE), the LC rate at 5 years was 95.0%, the overall survival rate was 69.2%, and the progression-free survival rate was 60.0% (median follow-up was 58.6 months). With dose escalation, LC tended to improve. As for adverse lung and skin reactions, there were no patients with grade 3 or higher reactions, and less than 2% had a grade 2 reaction. Regarding chest wall pain, only one patient had grade 3 late toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

We have reported the outcome of a dose escalation study of single-fraction carbon ion radiotherapy for stage I NSCLC, showing the feasibility of obtaining excellent results comparable to those with previous fractionated regimens.

Particle therapy for clinically diagnosed stage I lung cancer: comparison with pathologically proven non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to present the treatment outcomes of particle therapy for indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPNs) diagnosed as stage I non-small cell lung cancer, including a comparative analysis involving pathologically proven lung cancer (PPLC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 54 patients (57 lesions) who underwent particle therapy for IPNs were enrolled in this study. Median patient age was 76 (range 52-87) years. T-classification was: T1a, 30; T1b, 16; and T2a, 11. Particle therapy using protons or carbon ions was delivered at total doses of 52.8-80 Gy equivalent in 4-26 fractions. The PPLC cohort included 111 patients.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 41 (range 7-90) months. For all IPN patients, the three-year overall survival, progression-free survival, local control and distant progression-free survival rates were 90%, 72%, 94% and 79%, respectively. Grade 2 toxicities were radiation pneumonitis (19%), dermatitis (9%), rib fracture (2%), chest wall pain (2%) and neuropathy (2%). No ≥grade 3 toxicities were observed. In univariate analysis, the IPN group showed significantly better survival relative to the PPLC group. However, after adjustment for baseline imbalances between these two groups in multivariate analysis, pathological confirmation did not correlate with survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Particle therapy for IPNs provided favorable outcomes with minimal toxicities, which may be comparable to those for PPLC patients. Further studies are needed to clarify the optimal management of IPN patients.

High-dose proton beam therapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors

BACKGROUND

Evidence has suggested that radiation therapy with a lower dose per fraction may be a reasonable option for the treatment of centrally located non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of two proton beam therapy (PBT) protocols for stage I NSCLC and to determine prognostic factors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study included patients clinically diagnosed with stage I NSCLC. Based on the location of the tumor, one of the two PBT protocols was administered. Patients with peripherally located tumors were given 66 Gy relative biological dose effectiveness (RBE) over 10 fractions (Protocol A) while patients with centrally located tumors were given 80 Gy (RBE) over 25 fractions (Protocol B).

RESULTS

Between January 2009 and May 2012, 56 eligible patients were enrolled (protocol A: 32 patients; protocol B: 24 patients). The three-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and local control (LC) rates were 81.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 75.9-86.7%], 73.4% (95% CI 67.2-79.6%), and 96.0% (95% CI 93.2-98.8%), respectively. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the two protocols. Late grade 2 and 3 pulmonary toxicities were observed in nine patients (13.4%) and one patient (1.5%), respectively; no grade 4 or 5 toxicities were observed. Sex, age, performance status, T-stage, operability, and tumor pathology were not associated with OS and PFS. Only maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax; <5 vs. ≥5) was identified as a significant prognostic factor for OS and PFS.

CONCLUSION

Both high-dose PBT protocols achieved high LC rates with tolerable toxicities in stage I NSCLC patients, and SUVmax was a significant prognostic factor.

Carbon ion therapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer

Carbon ion therapy is a type of radiotherapies that can deliver high-dose radiation to a tumor while minimizing the dose delivered to the organs at risk; this profile differs from that of photon radiotherapy. Moreover, carbon ions are classified as high-linear energy transfer radiation and are expected to be effective for even photon-resistant tumors. Recently, high-precision radiotherapy modalities such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), proton therapy, and carbon ion therapy have been used for patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer, and the results are promising, as, for carbon ion therapy, local control and overall survival rates at 5 years are 80-90% and 40-50%, respectively. Carbon ion therapy may be theoretically superior to SBRT and proton therapy, but the literature that is currently available does not show a statistically significant difference among these treatments. Carbon ion therapy demonstrates a better dose distribution than both SBRT and proton therapy in most cases of early-stage lung cancer. Therefore, carbon ion therapy may be safer for treating patients with adverse conditions such as large tumors, central tumors, and poor pulmonary function. Furthermore, carbon ion therapy may also be suitable for dose escalation and hypofractionation.

Proton-based stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), a recent implementation in the practice of radiation oncology, has been shown to confer high rates of local control in the treatment of early stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This technique, which involves limited invasive procedures and reduced treatment intervals, offers definitive treatment for patients unable or unwilling to undergo an operation. The use of protons in SABR delivery confers the added physical advantage of normal tissue sparing due to the absence of collateral radiation dose delivered to regions distal to the target. This may translate into clinical benefit and a decreased risk of clinical toxicity in patients with nearby critical structures or limited pulmonary reserve. In this review, we present the rationale for proton-based SABR, principles relating to the delivery and planning of this modality, and a summary of published clinical studies.

The potential role of respiratory motion management and image guidance in the reduction of severe toxicities following stereotactic ablative radiation therapy for patients with centrally located early stage non-small cell lung cancer or lung metastases

Image guidance allows delivery of very high doses of radiation over a few fractions, known as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). This treatment is associated with excellent outcome for early stage non-small cell lung cancer and metastases to the lungs. In the delivery of SABR, central location constantly poses a challenge due to the difficulty of adequately sparing critical thoracic structures that are immediately adjacent to the tumor if an ablative dose of radiation is to be delivered to the tumor target. As of current, various respiratory motion management and image guidance strategies can be used to ensure accurate tumor target localization prior and/or during daily treatment, which allows for maximal and safe reduction of set up margins. The incorporation of both may lead to the most optimal normal tissue sparing and the most accurate SABR delivery. Here, the clinical outcome, treatment related toxicities, and the pertinent respiratory motion management/image guidance strategies reported in the current literature on SABR for central lung tumors are reviewed.