1
|
Tsang DS, Timmerman B. Improving Access to Proton Therapy in the United States and Around the World. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 119:1078-1081. [PMID: 38925766 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.214] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2024] [Revised: 01/22/2024] [Accepted: 01/26/2024] [Indexed: 06/28/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Derek S Tsang
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Beate Timmerman
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lillo S, Mirandola A, Vai A, Camarda AM, Ronchi S, Bonora M, Ingargiola R, Vischioni B, Orlandi E. Current Status and Future Directions of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Carcinoma. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:2085. [PMID: 38893203 PMCID: PMC11171191 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16112085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2024] [Revised: 05/28/2024] [Accepted: 05/29/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Lillo
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (A.M.C.); (S.R.); (M.B.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (E.O.)
| | - Alfredo Mirandola
- Medical Physics Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (A.M.); (A.V.)
| | - Alessandro Vai
- Medical Physics Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (A.M.); (A.V.)
| | - Anna Maria Camarda
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (A.M.C.); (S.R.); (M.B.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (E.O.)
| | - Sara Ronchi
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (A.M.C.); (S.R.); (M.B.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (E.O.)
| | - Maria Bonora
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (A.M.C.); (S.R.); (M.B.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (E.O.)
| | - Rossana Ingargiola
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (A.M.C.); (S.R.); (M.B.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (E.O.)
| | - Barbara Vischioni
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (A.M.C.); (S.R.); (M.B.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (E.O.)
| | - Ester Orlandi
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy; (A.M.C.); (S.R.); (M.B.); (R.I.); (B.V.); (E.O.)
- Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic, and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kutuk T, Atak E, Villa A, Kalman NS, Kaiser A. Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Head and Neck Cancer Care: Optimizing Oral Health Management for Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy. Curr Oncol 2024; 31:2092-2108. [PMID: 38668058 PMCID: PMC11049200 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31040155] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2024] [Revised: 03/29/2024] [Accepted: 04/03/2024] [Indexed: 04/28/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tugce Kutuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL 33176, USA; (T.K.)
| | - Ece Atak
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Akdeniz University Faculty of Medicine, Antalya 07070, Turkey;
| | - Alessandro Villa
- Oral Medicine and Oral Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL 33176, USA;
| | - Noah S. Kalman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL 33176, USA; (T.K.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA
| | - Adeel Kaiser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL 33176, USA; (T.K.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lütgendorf-Caucig C, Pelak M, Hug E, Flechl B, Surböck B, Marosi C, Mock U, Zach L, Mardor Y, Furman O, Hentschel H, Gora J, Fossati P, Stock M, Graichen U, Klee S, Georg P. Prospective Analysis of Radiation-Induced Contrast Enhancement and Health-Related Quality of Life After Proton Therapy for Central Nervous System and Skull Base Tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:1206-1216. [PMID: 38244874 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/04/2024] [Indexed: 01/22/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Intracerebral radiation-induced contrast enhancement (RICE) can occur after photon as well as proton beam therapy (PBT). This study evaluated the incidence, characteristics, and risk factors of RICE after PBT delivered to, or in direct proximity to, the brain and its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS AND MATERIALS Four hundred twenty-one patients treated with pencil beam scanning PBT between 2017 and 2021 were included. Follow-up included clinical evaluation and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment completion and annually thereafter. RICE was graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4, and HRQoL parameters were assessed via European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 questionnaires. RESULTS The median follow-up was 24 months (range, 6-54), and median dose to 1% relative volume of noninvolved central nervous system (D1%CNS) was 54.3 Gy relative biologic effectiveness (RBE; range, 30-76 Gy RBE). The cumulative RICE incidence was 15% (n = 63), of which 10.5% (n = 44) were grade 1, 3.1% (n = 13) were grade 2, and 1.4% (n = 6) were grade 3. No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. Twenty-six of 63 RICE (41.3%) had resolved at the latest follow-up. The median onset after PBT and duration of RICE in patients in whom the lesions resolved were 11.8 and 9.0 months, respectively. On multivariable analysis, D1%CNS > 57.6 Gy RBE, previous in-field radiation, and diabetes mellitus were identified as significant risk factors for RICE development. Previous radiation was the only factor influencing the risk of symptomatic RICE. After PBT, general HRQoL parameters were not compromised. In a matched cohort analysis of 54/50 patients with and without RICE, no differences in global health score or functional and symptom scales were seen. CONCLUSIONS The overall incidence of clinically relevant RICE after PBT is very low and has no significant negative effect on long-term patient QoL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Maciej Pelak
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria; University Clinic for Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Uniklinikum Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
| | - Eugen Hug
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Birgit Flechl
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Birgit Surböck
- Department of Neurology, Klinikum Favoriten, Vienna, Austria
| | - Christine Marosi
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Ulrike Mock
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Leor Zach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; Tel Aviv University, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Yael Mardor
- Tel Aviv University, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv, Israel; Advanced Technology Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - Orit Furman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | | | - Joanna Gora
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Piero Fossati
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Markus Stock
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Uwe Graichen
- Department of General Health Studies, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems, Austria
| | - Sascha Klee
- Department of General Health Studies, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems, Austria
| | - Petra Georg
- Department of Radiotherapy, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, University Hospital Krems, Krems, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cartechini G, Missiaggia M, Scifoni E, La Tessa C, Cordoni FG. Integrating microdosimetric in vitroRBE models for particle therapy into TOPAS MC using the MicrOdosimetry-based modeliNg for RBE ASsessment (MONAS) tool. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:045005. [PMID: 38211313 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad1d66] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2023] [Accepted: 01/11/2024] [Indexed: 01/13/2024]
Abstract
Objective.In this paper, we present MONAS (MicrOdosimetry-based modelliNg for relative biological effectiveness (RBE) ASsessment) toolkit. MONAS is a TOPAS Monte Carlo extension, that combines simulations of microdosimetric distributions with radiobiological microdosimetry-based models for predicting cell survival curves and dose-dependent RBE.Approach.MONAS expands TOPAS microdosimetric extension, by including novel specific energy scorers to calculate the single- and multi-event specific energy microdosimetric distributions at different micrometer scales. These spectra are used as physical input to three different formulations of themicrodosimetric kinetic model, and to thegeneralized stochastic microdosimetric model(GSM2), to predict dose-dependent cell survival fraction and RBE. MONAS predictions are then validated against experimental microdosimetric spectra andin vitrosurvival fraction data. To show the MONAS features, we present two different applications of the code: (i) the depth-RBE curve calculation from a passively scattered proton SOBP and monoenergetic12C-ion beam by using experimentally validated spectra as physical input, and (ii) the calculation of the 3D RBE distribution on a real head and neck patient geometry treated with protons.Main results.MONAS can estimate dose-dependent RBE and cell survival curves from experimentally validated microdosimetric spectra with four clinically relevant radiobiological models. From the radiobiological characterization of a proton SOBP and12C fields, we observe the well-known trend of increasing RBE values at the distal edge of the radiation field. The 3D RBE map calculated confirmed the trend observed in the analysis of the SOBP, with the highest RBE values found in the distal edge of the target.Significance.MONAS extension offers a comprehensive microdosimetry-based framework for assessing the biological effects of particle radiation in both research and clinical environments, pushing closer the experimental physics-based description to the biological damage assessment, contributing to bridging the gap between a microdosimetric description of the radiation field and its application in proton therapy treatment with variable RBE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giorgio Cartechini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1550 NW 10th Avenue, 33126, Miami (FL), United States of America
- Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Application (TIFPA), via Sommarive 15, I-38123, Trento, Italy
| | - Marta Missiaggia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1550 NW 10th Avenue, 33126, Miami (FL), United States of America
- Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Application (TIFPA), via Sommarive 15, I-38123, Trento, Italy
| | - Emanuele Scifoni
- Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Application (TIFPA), via Sommarive 15, I-38123, Trento, Italy
| | - Chiara La Tessa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1550 NW 10th Avenue, 33126, Miami (FL), United States of America
- Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Application (TIFPA), via Sommarive 15, I-38123, Trento, Italy
- Department of Physics, University of Trento, via Sommarive 14, I-38123, Trento, Italy
| | - Francesco G Cordoni
- Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Application (TIFPA), via Sommarive 15, I-38123, Trento, Italy
- Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, via Mesiano 77, I-38123, Trento, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Holt F, Probert J, Darby SC, Haviland JS, Coles CE, Kirby AM, Liu Z, Dodwell D, Ntentas G, Duane F, Taylor C. Proton Beam Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:869-882. [PMID: 36868521 PMCID: PMC7615202 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.02.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2022] [Revised: 02/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/11/2023] [Indexed: 03/05/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesca Holt
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
| | - Jake Probert
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah C Darby
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Joanne S Haviland
- Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Charlotte E Coles
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Anna M Kirby
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Zulian Liu
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - David Dodwell
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Georgios Ntentas
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Department of Medical Physics, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Frances Duane
- St. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network and Trinity St. James's Cancer Institute, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Carolyn Taylor
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Mazzola G, Bergamaschi L, Pedone C, Vincini M, Pepa M, Zaffaroni M, Volpe S, Rombi B, Doyen J, Fossati P, Haustermans K, Høyer M, Langendijk J, Matute R, Orlandi E, Rylander H, Troost E, Orecchia R, Alterio D, Jereczek-Fossa B. Patients' needs in proton therapy: A survey among ten European facilities. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2023; 43:100670. [PMID: 37736140 PMCID: PMC10509656 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100670] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2023] [Revised: 07/30/2023] [Accepted: 08/19/2023] [Indexed: 09/23/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G.C. Mazzola
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - L. Bergamaschi
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - C. Pedone
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - M.G. Vincini
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - M. Pepa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - M. Zaffaroni
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - S. Volpe
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - B. Rombi
- Proton Therapy Center, Trento, Italy
| | - J. Doyen
- Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France
| | - P. Fossati
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | | | - M. Høyer
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - J.A. Langendijk
- University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - R. Matute
- Centro de Protonterapia Quironsalud, Madrid, Spain
| | - E. Orlandi
- CNAO National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy, Pavia, Italy
| | | | - E.G.C. Troost
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Dresden, Germany
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology: Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - R. Orecchia
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - D. Alterio
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - B.A. Jereczek-Fossa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
de Jong BA, Korevaar EW, Maring A, Werkman CI, Scandurra D, Janssens G, Both S, Langendijk JA. Proton arc therapy increases the benefit of proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer patients in the model based clinic. Radiother Oncol 2023; 184:109670. [PMID: 37059337 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109670] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2023] [Revised: 04/04/2023] [Accepted: 04/05/2023] [Indexed: 04/16/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bas A de Jong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - Erik W Korevaar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Anneke Maring
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Chimène I Werkman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Daniel Scandurra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Stefan Both
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Yahya N, Manan HA. Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Proton Therapy for Oropharyngeal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15082252. [PMID: 37190180 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15082252] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2022] [Revised: 03/09/2023] [Accepted: 03/10/2023] [Indexed: 05/17/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Complex anatomy surrounding the oropharynx makes proton therapy (PT), especially intensity-modulated PT (IMPT), a potentially attractive option due to its ability to reduce the volume of irradiated healthy tissues. Dosimetric improvement may not translate to clinically relevant benefits. As outcome data are emerging, we aimed to evaluate the evidence of the quality of life (QOL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following PT for oropharyngeal carcinoma (OC). MATERIALS AND METHODS We searched PubMed and Scopus electronic databases (date: 15 February 2023) to identify original studies on QOL and PROs following PT for OC. We employed a fluid strategy in the search strategy by tracking citations of the initially selected studies. Reports were extracted for information on demographics, main results, and clinical and dose factor correlates. Quality assessment was performed using the NIH's Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. The PRISMA guidelines were followed in the preparation of this report. RESULTS Seven reports were selected, including one from a recently published paper captured from citation tracking. Five compared PT and photon-based therapy, although none were randomized controlled trials. Most endpoints with significant differences favored PT, including xerostomia, cough, need for nutritional supplements, dysgeusia, food taste, appetite, and general symptoms. However, some endpoints favored photon-based therapy (sexual symptoms) or showed no significant difference (e.g., fatigue, pain, sleep, mouth sores). The PROs and QOL improve following PT but do not appear to return to baseline. CONCLUSION Evidence suggests that PT causes less QOL and PRO deterioration than photon-based therapy. Biases due to the non-randomized study design remain obstacles to a firm conclusion. Whether or not PT is cost-effective should be the subject of further investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Noorazrul Yahya
- Diagnostic Imaging and Radiotherapy, Center for Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Investigative Studies (CODTIS), Faculty of Health Sciences, National University of Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Aziz, Kuala Lumpur 50300, Malaysia
| | - Hanani Abdul Manan
- Functional Image Processing Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Zhang Y, Trnkova P, Toshito T, Heijmen B, Richter C, Aznar M, Albertini F, Bolsi A, Daartz J, Bertholet J, Knopf A. A survey of practice patterns for real-time intrafractional motion-management in particle therapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2023; 26:100439. [PMID: 37124167 PMCID: PMC10133874 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2023.100439] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2023] [Revised: 04/05/2023] [Accepted: 04/06/2023] [Indexed: 05/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Organ motion compromises accurate particle therapy delivery. This study reports on the practice patterns for real-time intrafractional motion-management in particle therapy to evaluate current clinical practice and wishes and barriers to implementation. Materials and methods An institutional questionnaire was distributed to particle therapy centres worldwide (7/2020-6/2021) asking which type(s) of real-time respiratory motion management (RRMM) methods were used, for which treatment sites, and what were the wishes and barriers to implementation. This was followed by a three-round DELPHI consensus analysis (10/2022) to define recommendations on required actions and future vision. With 70 responses from 17 countries, response rate was 100% for Europe (23/23 centres), 96% for Japan (22/23) and 53% for USA (20/38). Results Of the 68 clinically operational centres, 85% used RRMM, with 41% using both rescanning and active methods. Sixty-four percent used active-RRMM for at least one treatment site, mostly with gating guided by an external marker. Forty-eight percent of active-RRMM users wished to expand or change their RRMM technique. The main barriers were technical limitations and limited resources. From the DELPHI analysis, optimisation of rescanning parameters, improvement of motion models, and pre-treatment 4D evaluation were unanimously considered clinically important future focus. 4D dose calculation was identified as the top requirement for future commercial treatment planning software. Conclusion A majority of particle therapy centres have implemented RRMM. Still, further development and clinical integration were desired by most centres. Joint industry, clinical and research efforts are needed to translate innovation into efficient workflows for broad-scale implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ye Zhang
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Petra Trnkova
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Toshiyuki Toshito
- Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya City University West Medical Center, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Ben Heijmen
- Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus University Medical Center (Erasmus MC), Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Christian Richter
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Marianne Aznar
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, United Kingdom
| | | | - Alexandra Bolsi
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Juliane Daartz
- F. Burr Proton Therapy, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - Jenny Bertholet
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Antje Knopf
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Institute for Medical Engineering and Medical Informatics, School of Life Science FHNW, Muttenz, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Calvo FA, Palma J, Serrano J, Cambeiro M, Meiriño R, Martin S, Azcona D, Pedrero D, Aguilar B, Delgado JM, Moran V, Viñals A, Cabello P, Panizo E, Lassaletta A, Gibert C, Sancho L, de Miguel JMF, de Sierra BA, Alcázar A, Suarez V, Alonso A, Gallardo G, Aristu J. Hospital-based proton therapy implementation during the COVID pandemic: early clinical and research experience in a European academic institution. Clin Transl Oncol 2023; 25:1268-1276. [PMID: 36961726 PMCID: PMC10036962 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-023-03127-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2023] [Accepted: 02/13/2023] [Indexed: 03/25/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION A rapid deploy of unexpected early impact of the COVID pandemic in Spain was described in 2020. Oncology practice was revised to facilitate decision-making regarding multimodal therapy for prevalent cancer types amenable to multidisciplinary treatment in which the radiotherapy component searched more efficient options in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, minimizing the risks to patients whilst aiming to guarantee cancer outcomes. METHODS A novel Proton Beam Therapy (PBT), Unit activity was analyzed in the period of March 2020 to March 2021. Institutional urgent, strict and mandatory clinical care standards for early diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 infection were stablished in the hospital following national health-authorities' recommendations. The temporary trends of patients care and research projects proposals were registered. RESULTS 3 out of 14 members of the professional staff involved in the PBR intra-hospital process had a positive test for COVID infection. Also, 4 out of 100 patients had positive tests before initiating PBT, and 7 out of 100 developed positive tests along the weekly mandatory special checkup performed during PBT to all patients. An update of clinical performance at the PBT Unit at CUN Madrid in the initial 500 patients treated with PBT in the period from March 2020 to November 2022 registers a distribution of 131 (26%) pediatric patients, 63 (12%) head and neck cancer and central nervous system neoplasms and 123 (24%) re-irradiation indications. In November 2022, the activity reached a plateau in terms of patients under treatment and the impact of COVID pandemic became sporadic and controlled by minor medical actions. At present, the clinical data are consistent with an academic practice prospectively (NCT05151952). Research projects and scientific production was adapted to the pandemic evolution and its influence upon professional time availability. Seven research projects based in public funding were activated in this period and preliminary data on molecular imaging guided proton therapy in brain tumors and post-irradiation patterns of blood biomarkers are reported. CONCLUSIONS Hospital-based PBT in European academic institutions was impacted by COVID-19 pandemic, although clinical and research activities were developed and sustained. In the post-pandemic era, the benefits of online learning will shape the future of proton therapy education.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felipe A Calvo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain.
| | - Jacobo Palma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Javier Serrano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Mauricio Cambeiro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Rosa Meiriño
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Santiago Martin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Diego Azcona
- Department of Medical Physics and Radioprotection, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Diego Pedrero
- Department of Medical Physics and Radioprotection, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Borja Aguilar
- Department of Medical Physics and Radioprotection, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Jose Miguel Delgado
- Department of Medical Physics and Radioprotection, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Verónica Moran
- Department of Medical Physics and Radioprotection, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Alberto Viñals
- Department of Medical Physics and Radioprotection, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Pablo Cabello
- Department of Medical Physics and Radioprotection, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Elena Panizo
- Department of Pediatric Oncology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Alvaro Lassaletta
- Department of Pediatric Oncology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Carlota Gibert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Lidia Sancho
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | - Andres Alcázar
- Department of Radiology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Victor Suarez
- Department of Radiology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Alberto Alonso
- Department of Radiology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Guillermo Gallardo
- Department of Radiology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Javier Aristu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Rong Y, Ding X, Daly ME. Hypofractionation and SABR: 25 years of evolution in medical physics and a glimpse of the future. Med Phys 2023. [PMID: 36756953 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16270] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2022] [Revised: 12/13/2022] [Accepted: 01/30/2023] [Indexed: 02/10/2023] Open
Abstract
As we were invited to write an article for celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Medical Physics journal, on something historically significant, commemorative, and exciting happening in the past decades, the first idea came to our mind is the fascinating radiotherapy paradigm shift from conventional fractionation to hypofractionation and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). It is historically and clinically significant since as we all know this RT treatment revolution not only reduces treatment duration for patients, but also improves tumor control and cancer treatment outcomes. It is also commemorative and exciting for us medical physicists since the technology development in medical physics has been the main driver for the success of this treatment regimen which requires high precision and accuracy throughout the entire treatment planning and delivery. This article provides an overview of the technological development and clinical trials evolvement in the past 25 years for hypofractionation and SABR, with an outlook to the future improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yi Rong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health, William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
| | - Megan E Daly
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Gaito S, Hwang EJ, France A, Aznar MC, Burnet N, Crellin A, Holtzman AL, Indelicato DJ, Timmerman B, Whitfield GA, Smith E. Outcomes of Patients Treated in the UK Proton Overseas Programme: Central Nervous System Group. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2023; 35:283-291. [PMID: 36804292 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2023.01.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2022] [Revised: 12/15/2022] [Accepted: 01/31/2023] [Indexed: 02/11/2023]
Abstract
AIMS In 2008, the UK National Health Service started the Proton Overseas Programme (POP), to provide access for proton beam therapy (PBT) abroad for selected tumour diagnoses while two national centres were being planned. The clinical outcomes for the patient group treated for central nervous system (CNS), base of skull, spinal and paraspinal malignancies are reported here. MATERIALS AND METHODS Since the start of the POP, an agreement between the National Health Service and UK referring centres ensured outcomes data collection, including overall survival, local tumour control and late toxicity data. Clinical and treatment-related data were extracted from this national patient database. Grade ≥3 late toxicities were reported following Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.0 definition, occurring later than 90 days since the completion of treatment. RESULTS Between 2008 and September 2020, 830 patients were treated within the POP for the above listed malignancies. Overall survival data were available for 815 patients and local control data for 726 patients. Toxicity analysis was carried out on 702 patients, with patients excluded due to short follow-up (<90 days) and/or inadequate toxicity data available. After a median follow-up of 3.34 years (0.06-11.58), the overall survival was 91.2%. The local control rate was 85.9% after a median follow-up of 2.81 years (range 0.04-11.58). The overall grade ≥3 late toxicity incidence was 11.97%, after a median follow-up of 1.72 years (0.04-8.45). The median radiotherapy prescription dose was 54 GyRBE (34.8-79.2). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicate the safety of PBT for CNS tumours. Preliminary clinical outcomes following PBT for paediatric/teen and young adult and adult CNS tumours treated within the POP are encouraging, which reflects accurate patient selection and treatment quality. The rate of late effects compares favourably with published cohorts. Clinical outcomes from this patient cohort will be compared with those of UK-treated patients since the start of the national PBT service in 2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Gaito
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK; Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
| | - E J Hwang
- Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK; Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - A France
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - M C Aznar
- Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - N Burnet
- Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - A Crellin
- Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; NHS England National Clinical Lead Proton Beam Therapy, UK
| | - A L Holtzman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| | - D J Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| | - B Timmerman
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Essen, Germany
| | - G A Whitfield
- Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - E Smith
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK; Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Leeuwenberg AM, Reitsma JB, Van den Bosch LGLJ, Hoogland J, van der Schaaf A, Hoebers FJP, Wijers OB, Langendijk JA, Moons KGM, Schuit E. The relation between prediction model performance measures and patient selection outcomes for proton therapy in head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2023; 179:109449. [PMID: 36566991 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.109449] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2022] [Revised: 12/08/2022] [Accepted: 12/13/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Artuur M Leeuwenberg
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
| | - Johannes B Reitsma
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Lisa G L J Van den Bosch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Hoogland
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Arjen van der Schaaf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Frank J P Hoebers
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Oda B Wijers
- Radiotherapeutic Institute Friesland, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Ewoud Schuit
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Safavi AH, Freeman C, Cheng S, Patel S, Mitera G, Kundapur V, Rutledge R, Tsang DS. Proton Therapy in Canada: Toward Universal Access and Health Equity With a Publicly Funded Facility. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 116:394-403. [PMID: 36565727 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.12.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2022] [Revised: 11/17/2022] [Accepted: 12/11/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Amir H Safavi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Sylvia Cheng
- BC Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Samir Patel
- Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Gunita Mitera
- Canadian Association of Provincial Cancer Agencies, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Vijayananda Kundapur
- Saskatchewan Cancer Agency, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
| | - Rob Rutledge
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Derek S Tsang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Engeseth GM. Achievements and challenges in normal tissue response modelling for proton therapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2022; 24:118-120. [PMID: 36405562 PMCID: PMC9667307 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
|
17
|
Barcellini A, Dominoni M, Gardella B, Mangili G, Orlandi E. Gynecological radio-induced secondary malignancy after a gynecological primary tumor: a rare entity and a challenge for oncologists. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:1321-1326. [PMID: 36515563 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003686] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
The management of radiation-induced secondary malignancies in the female genital tract after pelvic radiation treatment for a primary gynecological tumor is a challenge for multidisciplinary teams that follow survivors. Considering the lack of data on the incidence of this disease and the absence of guidelines for its management, in this review, the available literature is analyzed to determine the characteristics and the clinical management of gynecological radiation-induced secondary malignancies. Gynecological radiation-induced secondary malignancies were found to be predominantly more aggressive, poorly differentiated, and had rare histologic types compared with sporadic tumors. The management is influenced by previous radiation doses and the localization of the radiation-induced secondary malignancies. Surgery, when feasible, was the cornerstone; re-irradiation was an option when a surgical approach was not feasible and high-dose conformal techniques should be preferred considering the need to spare previously irradiated surrounding normal tissues. Clinical outcomes, when reported, were poor in terms of local control and survival. Given the difficulty in managing these uncommon malignancies, a centralization of care in sites that are connected to research networks actively partaking in international discussions and with higher expertise in complicated surgery or radiotherapy should be considered to improve clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amelia Barcellini
- Radiation Oncology, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Pavia, Italy
| | - Mattia Dominoni
- Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Paediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
| | - Barbara Gardella
- Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Paediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
| | - Giorgia Mangili
- Obstetrics & Gynecology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Ester Orlandi
- Radiation Oncology, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Pavia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Nuyts S, Bollen H, Ng SP, Corry J, Eisbruch A, Mendenhall WM, Smee R, Strojan P, Ng WT, Ferlito A. Proton Therapy for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: Early Clinical Experience and Current Challenges. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14112587. [PMID: 35681568 PMCID: PMC9179360 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14112587] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2022] [Revised: 05/18/2022] [Accepted: 05/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Proton therapy is a promising type of radiation therapy used to destroy tumor cells. It has the potential to further improve the outcomes for patients with head and neck cancer since it allows to minimize the radiation dose to vital structures around the tumor, leading to less toxicity. This paper describes the current experience worldwide with proton therapy in head and neck cancer. Abstract Proton therapy (PT) is a promising development in radiation oncology, with the potential to further improve outcomes for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC). By utilizing the finite range of protons, healthy tissue can be spared from beam exit doses that would otherwise be irradiated with photon-based treatments. Current evidence on PT for HNSCC is limited to comparative dosimetric analyses and retrospective single-institution series. As a consequence, the recognized indications for the reimbursement of PT remain scarce in most countries. Nevertheless, approximately 100 PT centers are in operation worldwide, and initial experiences for HNSCC are being reported. This review aims to summarize the results of the early clinical experience with PT for HNSCC and the challenges that are currently faced.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandra Nuyts
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
- Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Correspondence:
| | - Heleen Bollen
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
- Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Sweet Ping Ng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia;
| | - June Corry
- Division of Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia;
| | - Avraham Eisbruch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA;
| | - William M Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32209, USA;
| | - Robert Smee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Prince of Wales Cancer Centre, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia;
| | - Primoz Strojan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia;
| | - Wai Tong Ng
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China;
| | - Alfio Ferlito
- Coordinator of the International Head and Neck Scientific Group, 35125 Padua, Italy;
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Heuchel L, Hahn C, Pawelke J, Sørensen BS, Dosanjh M, Lühr A. Clinical use and future requirements of relative biological effectiveness: survey among all european proton therapy centres. Radiother Oncol 2022; 172:134-139. [PMID: 35605747 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.05.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2022] [Revised: 04/29/2022] [Accepted: 05/15/2022] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) varies along the treatment field. However, in clinical practice, a constant RBE of 1.1 is assumed, which can result in undesirable side effects. This study provides an accurate overview of current clinical practice for considering proton RBE in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS A survey was devised and sent to all proton therapy centres in Europe that treat patients. The online questionnaire consisted of 39 questions addressing various aspects of RBE consideration in clinical practice, including treatment planning, patient follow-up and future demands. RESULTS All 25 proton therapy centres responded. All centres prescribed a constant RBE of 1.1, but also applied measures (except for one eye treatment centre) to counteract variable RBE effects such as avoiding beams stopping inside or in front of an organ at risk and putting restrictions on the minimum number and opening angle of incident beams for certain treatment sites. For the future, most centres (16) asked for more retrospective or prospective outcome studies investigating the potential effect of the effect of a variable RBE. To perform such studies, 18 centres asked for LET and RBE calculation and visualisation tools developed by treatment planning system vendors. CONCLUSION All European proton centres are aware of RBE variability but comply with current guidelines of prescribing a constant RBE. However, they actively mitigate uncertainty and risk of side effects resulting from increased RBE by applying measures and restrictions during treatment planning. To change RBE-related clinical guidelines in the future more clinical data on RBE are explicitly demanded.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Heuchel
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Germany
| | - Christian Hahn
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Germany; OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
| | - Jörg Pawelke
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Germany
| | - Brita Singers Sørensen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Danish Center for Particle Therapy, DCPT, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Manjit Dosanjh
- Department of Physics, University of Oxford, UK; CERN, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Armin Lühr
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Xia Z, Wang J, Xia J, Wang M, Cheng Z. Inequality in Accessibility of Proton Therapy for Cancers and Its Economic Determinants: A Cross-Sectional Study. Front Oncol 2022; 12:876368. [PMID: 35669433 PMCID: PMC9163414 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.876368] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2022] [Accepted: 04/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Cancer is a leading cause of death in the world, and the estimated new cancer cases were 19 million and the estimated cancer deaths were around 10 million worldwide in 2020. Proton therapy (PT) is a promising treatment for cancers; however, only few patients with cancer received PT due to limited number of PT centers worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Methods and Results Cross-sectional country level data were collected from publicly available information. Lorenz curves and Gini coefficient were used to assess the inequality in accessing to PT, and zero-inflated Poisson models were used to investigate the determinants of number of PT facilities in each country. The Gini coefficients were 0.96 for PT centers and 0.96 for PT chambers, which indicated high level of inequality. Total GDP had a significant impact on whether a country had a practical PT center, whereas total GDP and GDP per capita had significant impacts on the number of PT centers. Conclusion Extremely high inequality exists in accessibility of PT centers among all countries in the world. Economic development was the most important factor determining the adoption of PT; thus, with the growth in global economics, more PT centers can be expected in near future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhongying Xia
- Department of Oncology of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China
- Graduate School, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
| | - Junfeng Wang
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Jiaxin Xia
- College of Pharmacy, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China
| | - Menglei Wang
- College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
| | - Zhiqiang Cheng
- Department of Oncology of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China
- *Correspondence: Zhiqiang Cheng,
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Medical Resource Use and Medical Costs for Radiotherapy-Related Adverse Effects: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14102444. [PMID: 35626049 PMCID: PMC9139402 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14102444] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2022] [Revised: 05/09/2022] [Accepted: 05/11/2022] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Cancer patients who receive radiotherapy often suffer from adverse effects that require healthcare resources to manage. This study summarized evidence of healthcare resource use and costs related to radiotherapy-induced adverse effects and provided recommendations for including this evidence in economic evaluations. Our findings revealed unignorable differences for the same adverse effects, which implied that the potential for the economic burden of adverse effects was overestimated or underestimated. Abstract Background: Despite the need for a proper economic evaluation of new radiotherapies, the economic burden of radiotherapy-induced adverse effects remains unclear. A systematic review has been conducted to identify the existing evidence of healthcare resource use and costs related to radiotherapy-induced adverse effects and also to provide recommendations for including this evidence in economic evaluations. Methods: This systematic review of healthcare resource use and/or medical costs related to radiotherapy-induced adverse effects was performed up until 2020, focusing on patients with head and neck cancer, brain cancer, prostate cancer, eye cancer and breast cancer. Results: Resource use for treating the same adverse effects varied considerably across studies; for instance, the cost for mucositis ranged from USD 2949 to USD 17,244. This broad range could be related to differences in (1) severity of adverse effects in the study population, (2) study design, (3) cost estimation approach and (4) country and clinical practice. Conclusions: Our findings revealed unignorable differences for the same adverse effects, which implied that the potential for the economic burden of adverse effects was being overestimated or underestimated in economic evaluation for radiotherapy.
Collapse
|
22
|
Burnet NG, Mee T, Gaito S, Kirkby NF, Aitkenhead AH, Anandadas CN, Aznar MC, Barraclough LH, Borst G, Charlwood FC, Clarke M, Colaco RJ, Crellin AM, Defourney NN, Hague CJ, Harris M, Henthorn NT, Hopkins KI, Hwang E, Ingram SP, Kirkby KJ, Lee LW, Lines D, Lingard Z, Lowe M, Mackay RI, McBain CA, Merchant MJ, Noble DJ, Pan S, Price JM, Radhakrishna G, Reboredo-Gil D, Salem A, Sashidharan S, Sitch P, Smith E, Smith EAK, Taylor MJ, Thomson DJ, Thorp NJ, Underwood TSA, Warmenhoven JW, Wylie JP, Whitfield G. Estimating the percentage of patients who might benefit from proton beam therapy instead of X-ray radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2022; 95:20211175. [PMID: 35220723 PMCID: PMC10993980 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20211175] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2021] [Revised: 01/11/2022] [Accepted: 01/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil G Burnet
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Thomas Mee
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Simona Gaito
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Norman F Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Adam H Aitkenhead
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Carmel N Anandadas
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Marianne C Aznar
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Lisa H Barraclough
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Gerben Borst
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Frances C Charlwood
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew Clarke
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Rovel J Colaco
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Adrian M Crellin
- NHS England National Clinical Lead Proton Beam Therapy, Leeds
Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds and St James's
Institute of Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett
Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK, Leeds,
United Kingdom
| | - Noemie N Defourney
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Christina J Hague
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Margaret Harris
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Nicholas T Henthorn
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Kirsten I Hopkins
- International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna International
Centre, Vienna,
Austria
| | - E Hwang
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Radiation
Oncology Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia and
Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sam P Ingram
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Karen J Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Lip W Lee
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - David Lines
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Zoe Lingard
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Matthew Lowe
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ranald I Mackay
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Catherine A McBain
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Merchant
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - David J Noble
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Edinburgh Cancer Centre,
Western General Hospital,
Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Shermaine Pan
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - James M Price
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | | | - David Reboredo-Gil
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ahmed Salem
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | | | - Peter Sitch
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ed Smith
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Foundation
Trust, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Edward AK Smith
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Taylor
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - David J Thomson
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Nicola J Thorp
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Tracy SA Underwood
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - John W Warmenhoven
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - James P Wylie
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Gillian Whitfield
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Steen-Olsen EB, Stormoen DR, Kristensen CA, Vogelius IR, Holländer-Mieritz C, Pappot H. Patient-reported outcome during radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: the use of different PRO questionnaires. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022; 279:4199-4206. [PMID: 35357578 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-022-07364-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2022] [Accepted: 03/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients are typically treated with radiotherapy (RT), which might lead to side effects and deterioration of quality of life (QoL). Studies in other cancers indicate that systematic use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) can be a tool to increase awareness of patients' symptoms and improve QoL. Multiple PRO questionnaires have been developed and validated for HNC, complicating the interpretation of results from scientific studies. In this exploratory study, symptom scores from four essential symptoms present in four different HNC-specific PRO questionnaires were evaluated. METHODS Four HNC-specific PRO questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-H&N35, FACT-H&N, MDASI-HN, and PRO-CTCAE) for patients undergoing radiotherapy were completed by eligible HNC patients up to ten times during and after RT. Four essential symptoms (pain, dysphagia, hoarseness, and dry mouth) were present in all questionnaires. The symptom scores for these symptoms were aligned and evaluated. RESULTS Twelve patients were included and completed a total of 328 PRO questionnaires out of 420. Similarity between symptom score for the four symptoms was found, when the symptom scores were aligned. The symptom scores increased during RT and decreased afterwards for all four symptoms and in all four questionnaires. CONCLUSION Four HNC-specific PRO questionnaires are found similar in reflecting symptom scores over time concerning four important HNC symptoms (pain, dysphagia, hoarseness, and dry mouth). PRO can contribute with targetable information about symptoms, and PRO questionnaires might be a valuable add on to clinical practice enabling a varied picture of patients' symptoms during radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Dag Rune Stormoen
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | - Ivan Richter Vogelius
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | - Helle Pappot
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|