1
|
Stokkevåg CH, Journy N, Vogelius IR, Howell RM, Hodgson D, Bentzen SM. Radiation Therapy Technology Advances and Mitigation of Subsequent Neoplasms in Childhood Cancer Survivors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 119:681-696. [PMID: 38430101 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.206] [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: 09/20/2023] [Revised: 12/17/2023] [Accepted: 01/13/2024] [Indexed: 03/03/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE In this Pediatric Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (PENTEC) vision paper, challenges and opportunities in the assessment of subsequent neoplasms (SNs) from radiation therapy (RT) are presented and discussed in the context of technology advancement. METHODS AND MATERIALS The paper discusses the current knowledge of SN risks associated with historic, contemporary, and future RT technologies. Opportunities for research and SN mitigation strategies in pediatric patients with cancer are reviewed. RESULTS Present experience with radiation carcinogenesis is from populations exposed during widely different scenarios. Knowledge gaps exist within clinical cohorts and follow-up; dose-response and volume effects; dose-rate and fractionation effects; radiation quality and proton/particle therapy; age considerations; susceptibility of specific tissues; and risks related to genetic predisposition. The biological mechanisms associated with local and patient-level risks are largely unknown. CONCLUSIONS Future cancer care is expected to involve several available RT technologies, necessitating evidence and strategies to assess the performance of competing treatments. It is essential to maximize the utilization of existing follow-up while planning for prospective data collection, including standardized registration of individual treatment information with linkage across patient databases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Camilla H Stokkevåg
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
| | - Neige Journy
- French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) Unit 1018, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, Paris Saclay University, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Ivan R Vogelius
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Rebecca M Howell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - David Hodgson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Søren M Bentzen
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mirzaei M, Rowshanfarzad P, Gill S, Ebert MA, Dass J. Risk of cardiac implantable device malfunction in cancer patients receiving proton therapy: an overview. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1181450. [PMID: 37469405 PMCID: PMC10352826 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1181450] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2023] [Accepted: 06/12/2023] [Indexed: 07/21/2023] Open
Abstract
Age is a risk factor for both cardiovascular disease and cancer, and as such radiation oncologists frequently see a number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) receiving proton therapy (PT). CIED malfunctions induced by PT are nonnegligible and can occur in both passive scattering and pencil beam scanning modes. In the absence of an evidence-based protocol, the authors emphasise that this patient cohort should be managed differently to electron- and photon- external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) patients due to distinct properties of proton beams. Given the lack of a PT-specific guideline for managing this cohort and limited studies on this important topic; the process was initiated by evaluating all PT-related CIED malfunctions to provide a baseline for future reporting and research. In this review, different modes of PT and their interactions with a variety of CIEDs and pacing leads are discussed. Effects of PT on CIEDs were classified into a variety of hardware and software malfunctions. Apart from secondary neutrons, cumulative radiation dose, dose rate, CIED model/manufacturer, distance from CIED to proton field, and materials used in CIEDs/pacing leads were all evaluated to determine the probability of malfunctions. The importance of proton beam arrangements is highlighted in this study. Manufacturers should specify recommended dose limits for patients undergoing PT. The establishment of an international multidisciplinary team dedicated to CIED-bearing patients receiving PT may be beneficial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Milad Mirzaei
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
- Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
| | - Pejman Rowshanfarzad
- School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Suki Gill
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
- School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Martin A. Ebert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
- School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Joshua Dass
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hasan S, Lazarev S, Garg M, Gozland R, Chang J, Hartsell W, Chen J, Tsai H, Vargas C, Simone CB, Gorovets D. Proton therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: Results from the Proton Collaborative Group PCG 001-09 prospective registry trial. Prostate 2023; 83:850-856. [PMID: 36946610 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24525] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2022] [Revised: 02/07/2023] [Accepted: 02/22/2023] [Indexed: 03/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Data for proton therapy in high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) are limited. Using the Proton Collaborative Group prospective registry, we evaluated outcomes for HRPC patients treated with proton therapy. METHODS A totsl of 605 men with localized HRPC treated with proton therapy from 8/2009 to 3/2019 at nine institutions were selected. Outcomes examined included freedom from progression (FFP), metastasis free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Multivariable cox/binomial regression models were used to assess predictors of FFP and toxicity. RESULTS Median age was 71 years. Gleason grade groups 4 (49.4%) and 5 (31.7%) were most common, as were clinical stage T1c (46.1%) and cT2 (41.3%). The median pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 9.18 and median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 6. Androgen deprivation therapy was given in 63.6%. Median dose was 79.2 GyE in 44 fractions. Pelvic lymph nodes were treated in 58.2% of cases. Pencil beam scanning was used in 54.5%, uniform scanning in 38.8%, and a rectal spacer in 14.2%. At a median followup of 22 months, the 3- and 5-year FFP were 90.7% and 81.4%, respectively. Five-year MFS and OS were 92.8% and 95.9%, respectively. Independent correlates of FFP included Gleason ≥8, PSA > 10, and cT2 (all p < 0.05). No grade 4 or 5 adverse events were reported. There were 23 (5%) grade 2 and 0 grade 3 gastrointestinal events. Prevalence of late grade 3, late grade 2, acute grade 3, and acute grade 2 genitourinary toxicity was 1.7%, 5.8%, 0%, and 21.8%, respectively. Prevalence of grade 2 and 3 erectile dysfunction at 2 years was 48.4% and 8.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In the largest series published to date, our results suggest early outcomes using proton therapy for HRPC are encouraging for both safety and efficacy. Further evaluation is needed to determine if an advantage exists to use protons over other radiation techniques in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Stanislav Lazarev
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Madhur Garg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, USA
| | - Rachel Gozland
- Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA
| | - John Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oklahoma Proton Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
| | - William Hartsell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Jonathan Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Henry Tsai
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey, USA
| | - Carlos Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | | | - Daniel Gorovets
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Vaniqui A, Vaassen F, Di Perri D, Eekers D, Compter I, Rinaldi I, van Elmpt W, Unipan M. Linear Energy Transfer and Relative Biological Effectiveness Investigation of Various Structures for a Cohort of Proton Patients With Brain Tumors. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 8:101128. [PMID: 36632089 PMCID: PMC9827037 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101128] [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: 09/21/2022] [Accepted: 10/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The current knowledge on biological effects associated with proton therapy is limited. Therefore, we investigated the distributions of dose, dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd), and the product between dose and LETd (DLETd) for a patient cohort treated with proton therapy. Different treatment planning system features and visualization tools were explored. Methods and Materials For a cohort of 24 patients with brain tumors, the LETd, DLETd, and dose was calculated for a fixed relative biological effectiveness value and 2 variable models: plan-based and phenomenological. Dose threshold levels of 0, 5, and 20 Gy were imposed for LETd visualization. The relationship between physical dose and LETd and the frequency of LETd hotspots were investigated. Results The phenomenological relative biological effectiveness model presented consistently higher dose values. For lower dose thresholds, the LETd distribution was steered toward higher values related to low treatment doses. Differences up to 26.0% were found according to the threshold. Maximum LETd values were identified in the brain, periventricular space, and ventricles. An inverse relationship between LETd and dose was observed. Frequency information to the domain of dose and LETd allowed for the identification of clusters, which steer the mean LETd values, and the identification of higher, but sparse, LETd values. Conclusions Identifying, quantifying, and recording LET distributions in a standardized fashion is necessary, because concern exists over a link between toxicity and LET hotspots. Visualizing DLETd or dose × LETd during treatment planning could allow for clinicians to make informed decisions.
Collapse
|
5
|
Russ E, Davis CM, Slaven JE, Bradfield DT, Selwyn RG, Day RM. Comparison of the Medical Uses and Cellular Effects of High and Low Linear Energy Transfer Radiation. TOXICS 2022; 10:toxics10100628. [PMID: 36287908 PMCID: PMC9609561 DOI: 10.3390/toxics10100628] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2022] [Revised: 10/13/2022] [Accepted: 10/14/2022] [Indexed: 05/14/2023]
Abstract
Exposure to ionizing radiation can occur during medical treatments, from naturally occurring sources in the environment, or as the result of a nuclear accident or thermonuclear war. The severity of cellular damage from ionizing radiation exposure is dependent upon a number of factors including the absorbed radiation dose of the exposure (energy absorbed per unit mass of the exposure), dose rate, area and volume of tissue exposed, type of radiation (e.g., X-rays, high-energy gamma rays, protons, or neutrons) and linear energy transfer. While the dose, the dose rate, and dose distribution in tissue are aspects of a radiation exposure that can be varied experimentally or in medical treatments, the LET and eV are inherent characteristics of the type of radiation. High-LET radiation deposits a higher concentration of energy in a shorter distance when traversing tissue compared with low-LET radiation. The different biological effects of high and low LET with similar energies have been documented in vivo in animal models and in cultured cells. High-LET results in intense macromolecular damage and more cell death. Findings indicate that while both low- and high-LET radiation activate non-homologous end-joining DNA repair activity, efficient repair of high-LET radiation requires the homologous recombination repair pathway. Low- and high-LET radiation activate p53 transcription factor activity in most cells, but high LET activates NF-kB transcription factor at lower radiation doses than low-LET radiation. Here we review the development, uses, and current understanding of the cellular effects of low- and high-LET radiation exposure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric Russ
- Graduate Program of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
| | - Catherine M. Davis
- Department of Pharmacology and Molecular Therapeutics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
| | - John E. Slaven
- Department of Pharmacology and Molecular Therapeutics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
| | - Dmitry T. Bradfield
- Department of Pharmacology and Molecular Therapeutics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
| | - Reed G. Selwyn
- Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA
| | - Regina M. Day
- Department of Pharmacology and Molecular Therapeutics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Pelak MJ, Flechl B, Hug E, Galalae R, Konrath L, Góra J, Fossati P, Lütgendorf-Caucig C, Tubin S, Konstantinovic R, Mock U, Fussl C, Georg P. Normofractionated and moderately hypofractionated proton therapy: comparison of acute toxicity and early quality of life outcomes. Front Oncol 2022; 12:962697. [PMID: 36052240 PMCID: PMC9425455 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.962697] [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: 06/06/2022] [Accepted: 06/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
AimData on the safety of moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy (PBT) are limited. The aim of this study is to compare the acute toxicity and early quality of life (QoL) outcomes of normofractionated (nPBT) and hypofractionated PBT (hPBT).Material and methodsWe prospectively compared acute toxicity and QoL between patients treated with nPBT (dose per fraction 1.8–2.3 Gy, n = 90) and hPBT (dose per fraction 2.5–3.1 Gy, n = 49) in following locations: head and neck (H&N, n = 85), abdomen and pelvis (A&P, n = 43), and other soft tissue (ST, n = 11). The toxicities were grouped into categories—mucosal, skin, and other sites—and evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03 at baseline, treatment completion, and 3 months after PBT completion. QoL was evaluated with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 scale for all locations and additionally with EORTC QLQ-HN35 for H&N patients.ResultsOverall, the highest toxicity grades of G0, G1, G2, and G3 were observed in 7 (5%), 40 (28.8%), 78 (56.1%), and 15 (10.8%) patients, respectively. According to organ and site, no statistically significant differences were detected in the majority of toxicity comparisons (66.7%). For A&P, hPBT showed a more favorable toxicity profile as compared to nPBT with a higher frequency of G0 and G1 and a lower frequency of G2 and G3 events (p = 0.04), more patients with improvement (95.7% vs 70%, p = 0.023), and full resolution of toxicities (87% vs 50%, p = 0.008). Skin toxicity was unanimously milder for hPBT compared to nPBT in A&P and ST locations (p = 0.018 and p = 0.025, respectively). No significant differences in QoL were observed in 97% of comparisons for QLQ-C30 scale except for loss of appetite in H&N patients (+33.3 for nPBT and 0 for hPBT, p = 0.02) and role functioning for A&P patients (0 for nPBT vs +16.7 hPBT, p = 0.003). For QLQ-HN35, 97.9% of comparisons did not reveal significant differences, with pain as the only scale varying between the groups (−8.33 vs −25, p = 0.016).ConclusionHypofractionated proton therapy offers non-inferior early safety and QoL as compared to normofractionated irradiation and warrants further clinical investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Birgit Flechl
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
- *Correspondence: Birgit Flechl,
| | - Eugen Hug
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Razvan Galalae
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
- Medizinische Fakultät, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Lisa Konrath
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Joanna Góra
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Piero Fossati
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | | | - Slavisa Tubin
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | | | - Ulrike Mock
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Christoph Fussl
- Universitätsklinik für Radiotherapie und Radio-Onkologie, Landeskrankenhaus (LKH) Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Petra Georg
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
High-Throughput 3D Tumor Spheroid Array Platform for Evaluating Sensitivity of Proton-Drug Combinations. Int J Mol Sci 2022; 23:ijms23020587. [PMID: 35054773 PMCID: PMC8775525 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23020587] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2021] [Revised: 12/25/2021] [Accepted: 01/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a critical treatment modality for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). However, not much is known about drug combinations that may improve the efficacy of PBT. This study aimed to test the feasibility of a three-dimensional (3D) tumor-spheroid-based high-throughput screening platform that could assess cellular sensitivity against PBT. Spheroids of two HNSCC cell lines—Fadu and Cal27—cultured with a mixture of Matrigel were arrayed on a 384-pillar/well plate, followed by exposure to graded doses of protons or targeted drugs including olaparib at various concentrations. Calcein staining of HNSCC spheroids revealed a dose-dependent decrease in cell viability for proton irradiation or multiple targeted drugs, and provided quantitative data that discriminated the sensitivity between the two HNSCC cell lines. The combined effect of protons and olaparib was assessed by calculating the combination index from the survival rates of 4 × 4 matrices, showing that Cal27 spheroids had greater synergy with olaparib than Fadu spheroids. In contrast, adavosertib did not synergize with protons in both spheroids. Taken together, we demonstrated that the 3D pillar/well array platform was a useful tool that provided rapid, quantitative data for evaluating sensitivity to PBT and drug combinations. Our results further supported that administration of the combination of PBT and olaparib may be an effective treatment strategy for HNSCC patients.
Collapse
|
8
|
Radiation induced contrast enhancement after proton beam therapy in patients with low grade glioma - How safe are protons? Radiother Oncol 2021; 167:211-218. [PMID: 34973277 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.12.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2021] [Revised: 11/30/2021] [Accepted: 12/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The optimal treatment strategy for low-grade glioma (LGG) is still a matter of controversy. Considering that the prognosis is typically favorable, the prevention of late sequelae is of particular importance. Proton beam therapy (PRT) has the potential to further reduce the burden of treatment related side effects. We set out to evaluate the clinical outcome of proton irradiation with a particular focus on morphologic features on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS We assessed prospectively 110 patients who received radiotherapy with protons for histologically proven LGG. Clinical and radiological information were analyzed resulting in more than 1200 available MRI examinations with a median follow-up of 39 months. Newly diagnosed contrast-enhancing lesions on MRI were delineated and correlated with parameters of the corresponding treatment plan. A voxel-based dose-matched paired analysis of the linear energy transfer (LET) inside vs outside lesions was performed. RESULTS Proton beam irradiation of patients with low-grade glioma results in overall survival (OS) of 90% after seven years. Median progression free survival had not yet been reached with surviving fraction of 54% after seven years. The incidence of temporary or clinically silent radiation induced contrast enhancement was significantly higher than previously assumed, however, symptomatic radiation necrosis was only detected in one patient. These radiation-induced contrast-enhancing lesions were almost exclusively seen at the distal beam end of the proton beam. In 22 out of 23 patients, the average LET of voxels inside contrast-enhancing lesions was significantly increased, compared to dose-matched voxels outside the lesions. CONCLUSION Symptomatic radiation necrosis following PRT was as rare as conventional photon-based treatment series suggest. However, the increased incidence of asymptomatic radiation-induced brain injuries with an increased average LET observed in this cohort provides strong clinical evidence to support the hypothesis that the relative biological effectiveness of protons is variable and different to the fixed factor of 1.1 currently used worldwide.
Collapse
|
9
|
Duan Y, Cao H, Wu B, Wu Y, Liu D, Zhou L, Feng A, Wang H, Chen H, Gu H, Shao Y, Huang Y, Lin Y, Ma K, Fu X, Fu H, Kong Q, Xu Z. Dosimetric Comparison, Treatment Efficiency Estimation, and Biological Evaluation of Popular Stereotactic Radiosurgery Options in Treating Single Small Brain Metastasis. Front Oncol 2021; 11:716152. [PMID: 34540686 PMCID: PMC8447903 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.716152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2021] [Accepted: 07/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives This study aimed to show the advantages of each stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatment option for single small brain metastasis among Gamma Knife (GK), Cone-based VMAT (Cone-VMAT), and MLC-based CRT (MLC-CRT) plans. Materials and Methods GK, Cone-VMAT, and MLC-CRT SRS plans were retrospectively generated for 11 patients with single small brain metastasis whose volume of gross tumor volume (GTV) ranged from 0.18 to 0.76 cc (median volume 0.60 cc). Dosimetric parameters, treatment efficiency, and biological parameters of the three techniques were compared and evaluated. The metric variation with the planning target volume (PTV) was also studied. Results The conformity index (CI) was similar in GK and MLC-CRT plans, higher than Cone-VMAT. Cone-VMAT achieved comparable volume covered by 12 Gy (V12) and gradient index (GI) as GK, lower than MLC-CRT. The heterogeneity index (HI) of GK, Cone-VMAT, and MLC-CRT decreased sequentially. GK gave the lowest volume covered by 3 Gy (V3) and 6 Gy (V6), while MLC-CRT got the highest. The beam-on time and treatment time of GK, Cone-VMAT, and MLC-CRT decreased in turn. Tumor control probability (TCP) of all three SRS plans was greater than 98%, and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of all organs at risk (OARs) was below 0.01%. GK and Cone-VMAT resulted in superior TCP and NTCP of the normal brain tissue than MLC-CRT. The relative value of Cone-VMAT and GK for all metrics hardly changed with the target volume. Except for the unchanged HI and TCP, the other results of MLC-CRT with respect to GK improved as the target volume increased. MLC-CRT could produce higher CI than GK and Cone-VMAT when the target volume increased above 2 and 1.44 cc, respectively. Conclusion For single small brain metastases, Cone-VMAT may be used as an alternative to GK-free centers. In addition to the advantage of short treatment time, MLC-CRT showed superiority in CI as the target volume increased. Treatment centers can choose appropriate SRS technique on a case-by-case basis according to institutional conditions and patients’ individual needs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yanhua Duan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Hongbin Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Boheng Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Yinghui Wu
- Nuclear Protective Treatment Department of Radiation, Navy Specialty Medical Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Dong Liu
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Beijing, China
| | - Lijun Zhou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Aihui Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Hao Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Hua Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Hengle Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Yan Shao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Ying Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Yang Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Kui Ma
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Beijing, China
| | - Xiaolong Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Hong Fu
- Department of Mathematics and Information Technology, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Qing Kong
- Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Zhiyong Xu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Current Situation of Proton Therapy for Hodgkin Lymphoma: From Expectations to Evidence. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13153746. [PMID: 34359647 PMCID: PMC8345146 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13153746] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2021] [Revised: 07/22/2021] [Accepted: 07/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Consolidative radiation therapy (RT) is of prime importance for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) management since it significantly increases progression-free survival (PFS). Nevertheless, first-generation techniques, relying on large irradiation fields, delivered significant radiation doses to critical organs-at-risk (OARs, such as the heart, to the lung or the breasts) when treating mediastinal HL; consequently, secondary cancers, and cardiac and lung toxicity were substantially increased. Fortunately, HL RT has drastically evolved and, nowadays, state-of-the-art RT techniques efficiently spare critical organs-at-risks without altering local control or overall survival. Recently, proton therapy has been evaluated for mediastinal HL treatment, due to its possibility to significantly reduce integral dose to OARs, which is expected to limit second neoplasm risk and reduce late toxicity. Nevertheless, clinical experience for this recent technique is still limited worldwide. Based on current literature, this critical review aims to examine the current practice of proton therapy for mediastinal HL irradiation.
Collapse
|
11
|
Dose Calculation Algorithms for External Radiation Therapy: An Overview for Practitioners. APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL 2021. [DOI: 10.3390/app11156806] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy (RT) is a constantly evolving therapeutic technique; improvements are continuously being introduced for both methodological and practical aspects. Among the features that have undergone a huge evolution in recent decades, dose calculation algorithms are still rapidly changing. This process is propelled by the awareness that the agreement between the delivered and calculated doses is of paramount relevance in RT, since it could largely affect clinical outcomes. The aim of this work is to provide an overall picture of the main dose calculation algorithms currently used in RT, summarizing their underlying physical models and mathematical bases, and highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, referring to the most recent studies on algorithm comparisons. This handy guide is meant to provide a clear and concise overview of the topic, which will prove useful in helping clinical medical physicists to perform their responsibilities more effectively and efficiently, increasing patient benefits and improving the overall quality of the management of radiation treatment.
Collapse
|
12
|
Buchsbaum JC. Comments on "Temporal lobe sparing radiotherapy with photons or protons for cognitive function preservation in paediatric craniopharyngioma" by Toussaint, et al.: Prior Similar Field Arrangement Work and a Need for Variable RBE Use. Radiother Oncol 2021; 158:327-329. [PMID: 33548283 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.11.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2020] [Revised: 11/15/2020] [Accepted: 11/18/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey C Buchsbaum
- Radiation Research Program, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Kotecha R, Tom MC, Naik M, Angelov L, Benzel EC, Reddy CA, Prayson RA, Kalfas I, Schlenk R, Krishnaney A, Steinmetz MP, Bingaman W, Suh JH, Chao ST. Analyzing the role of adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy for spinal myxopapillary ependymomas. J Neurosurg Spine 2020; 33:392-397. [PMID: 32357340 DOI: 10.3171/2020.2.spine191534] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2019] [Accepted: 02/20/2020] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The authors sought to describe the long-term recurrence patterns, prognostic factors, and effect of adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy (RT) on treatment outcomes for patients with spinal myxopapillary ependymoma (MPE). METHODS The authors reviewed a tertiary institution IRB-approved database and collected data regarding patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics for all patients treated consecutively from 1974 to 2015 for histologically confirmed spinal MPE. Key outcomes included relapse-free survival (RFS), postrecurrence RFS, failure patterns, and influence of timing of RT on recurrence patterns. Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses were utilized. RESULTS Of the 59 patients included in the study, the median age at initial surgery was 34 years (range 12-74 years), 30 patients (51%) were female, and the most common presenting symptom was pain (n = 52, 88%). Extent of resection at diagnosis was gross-total resection (GTR) in 39 patients (66%), subtotal resection (STR) in 15 (25%), and unknown in 5 patients (9%). After surgery, 10 patients (17%) underwent adjuvant RT (5/39 GTR [13%] and 5/15 STR [33%] patients). Median follow-up was 6.2 years (range 0.1-35.3 years). Overall, 20 patients (34%) experienced recurrence (local, n = 15; distant, n = 5). The median RFS was 11.2 years (95% CI 77 to not reached), and the 5- and 10-year RFS rates were 72.3% (95% CI 59.4-86.3) and 54.0% (95% CI, 36.4-71.6), respectively.STR was associated with a higher risk of recurrence (HR 6.45, 95% CI 2.15-19.23, p < 0.001) than GTR, and the median RFS after GTR was 17.2 years versus 5.5 years after STR. Adjuvant RT was not associated with improved RFS, regardless of whether it was delivered after GTR or STR. Of the 20 patients with recurrence, 12 (60%) underwent salvage treatment with surgery alone (GTR, n = 6), 4 (20%) with RT alone, and 4 (20%) with surgery and RT. Compared to salvage surgery alone, salvage RT, with or without surgery, was associated with a significantly longer postrecurrence RFS (median 9.5 years vs 1.6 years; log-rank, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS At initial diagnosis of spinal MPE, GTR is key to long-term RFS, with no benefit to immediate adjuvant RT observed in this series. RT at the time of recurrence, however, is associated with a significantly longer time to second disease recurrence. Surveillance imaging of the entire neuraxis remains crucial, as distant failure is not uncommon in this patient population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rupesh Kotecha
- 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami
- 2Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida
| | - Martin C Tom
- 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic; and Departments of
| | - Mihir Naik
- 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic; and Departments of
| | | | | | - Chandana A Reddy
- 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic; and Departments of
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - John H Suh
- 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic; and Departments of
| | - Samuel T Chao
- 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic; and Departments of
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Noël G, Thariat J, Antoni D. [Uncertainties in the current concept of radiotherapy planning target volume]. Cancer Radiother 2020; 24:667-675. [PMID: 32828670 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2020.06.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2020] [Revised: 06/01/2020] [Accepted: 06/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
The planning target volume is an essential notion in radiotherapy, that requires a new conceptualization. Indeed, the variability and diversity of the uncertainties involved or improved with the development of the new modern technologies and devices in radiotherapy suggest that random and systematic errors cannot be currently generalized. This article attempts to discuss these various uncertainties and tries to demonstrate that a redefinition of the concept of planning target volume toward its personalization for each patient and the robustness notion are likely an improvement basis to take into account the radiotherapy uncertainties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Noël
- Service d'oncologie radiothérapie, Institut de cancérologie Strasbourg Europe (Icans), 17, rue Albert-Calmette, 67033 Strasbourg, France.
| | - J Thariat
- Département de radiothérapie, centre François-Baclesse, 3, avenue General-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Association Advance Resource Centre for Hadrontherapy in Europe (Archade), 3, avenue General-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Laboratoire de physique corpusculaire, Institut national de physique nucléaire et de physique des particules (IN2P3), 6, boulevard Maréchal-Juin, 14000 Caen, France; École nationale supérieure d'ingénieurs de Caen (ENSICaen), 6, boulevard Maréchal-Juin, CS 45053 14050 Caen cedex 4, France; Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), UMR 6534, 6, boulevard Maréchal-Juin, 14000 Caen, France; Université de Caen Normandie (Unicaen), esplanade de la Paix, CS 14032, 14032 Caen, France
| | - D Antoni
- Service d'oncologie radiothérapie, Institut de cancérologie Strasbourg Europe (Icans), 17, rue Albert-Calmette, 67033 Strasbourg, France
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Pencil beam scanning proton therapy for the treatment of craniopharyngioma complicated with radiation-induced cerebral vasculopathies: A dosimetric and linear energy transfer (LET) evaluation. Radiother Oncol 2020; 149:197-204. [PMID: 32387488 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.04.052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2019] [Revised: 04/27/2020] [Accepted: 04/28/2020] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE This study analyses the dosimetric and dose averaged Linear Energy transfer (LETd) correlation in paediatric craniopharyngioma (CP) patients with and without radiation-induced cerebral vasculopathies (RICVs) treated with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy (PT). MATERIAL AND METHODS We reviewed a series of 16 CP patients treated with PT to a median dose of 54 Gy(RBE). Two (12.5%) index patients presented RICVs 14 and 24 months (median, 19) after PT. Organs at risks (OARs) as bilateral internal carotid arteries (ICAs) and circle of Willis were contoured based on CTs and MRIs pre- and post-PT. Dosimetry was reviewed and LETd distributions were calculated; LETd metric for PTVs and OARs were analysed. For a sub-cohort, dosimetric and LETd values robustness due to range uncertainties were computed. RESULTS For the two index patients, no correlation was observed between RICVs and OARs doses. However for those patients mean(maximum) LETd values in the affected OARs were up to 4.0 ± 0.4 (7.8 ± 0.1)keV/μm; those LETd values were significantly higher (p = 0.02) than the mean(maximum) LETd values for the rest of the cohort (mean: 3.1 ± 0.3, maximum: 4.8 ± 1.0 keV/μm). This was due to asymmetric field arrangement, thus resulting in marked asymmetric LETd distributions. For such arrangement, maximum LETd values variations in vascular structures due to range uncertainties were up to 1.2 keV/μm, whilst for the symmetric one they were up to 0.7 keV/μm. CONCLUSIONS For children with and without RICVs, quantitative analysis showed a significant correlation with LETd average/maximum values in vascular structures, whilst no correlation was found on dosimetric parameters.
Collapse
|
16
|
Hwang EJ, Gorayski P, Le H, Hanna GG, Kenny L, Penniment M, Buck J, Thwaites D, Ahern V. Particle therapy tumour outcomes: An updated systematic review. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2020; 64:711-724. [PMID: 32270626 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2019] [Revised: 12/20/2019] [Accepted: 02/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Particle therapy (PT) offers the potential for reduced normal tissue damage as well as escalation of target dose, thereby enhancing the therapeutic ratio in radiation therapy. Reflecting the building momentum of PT use worldwide, construction has recently commenced for The Australian Bragg Centre for Proton Therapy and Research in Adelaide - the first PT centre in Australia. This systematic review aims to update the clinical evidence base for PT, both proton beam and carbon ion therapy. The purpose is to inform clinical decision-making for referral of patients to PT centres in Australia as they become operational and overseas in the interim. 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 thirty-six studies were included, two-thirds related to proton beam therapy alone. PT at the very least provides equivalent tumour outcomes compared to photon controls with the possibility of improved control in the case of carbon ion therapy. There is suggestion of reduced morbidities in a range of tumour sites, supporting the predictions from dosimetric modelling and the wide international acceptance of PT for specific indications based on this. Though promising, this needs to be counterbalanced by the overall low quality of evidence found, with 90% of studies of level IV (case series) evidence. Prospective comparative clinical trials, supplemented by database-derived outcome information, preferably conducted within international and national networks, are strongly recommended as PT is introduced into Australasia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eun Ji Hwang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Radiation Oncology Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Medicine, Westmead Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Peter Gorayski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Hien Le
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Gerard G Hanna
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Liz Kenny
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Michael Penniment
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Jacqueline Buck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Radiation Oncology Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - David Thwaites
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Radiation Oncology Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Verity Ahern
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Radiation Oncology Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Szymonowicz K, Krysztofiak A, van der Linden J, Kern A, Deycmar S, Oeck S, Squire A, Koska B, Hlouschek J, Vüllings M, Neander C, Siveke JT, Matschke J, Pruschy M, Timmermann B, Jendrossek V. Proton Irradiation Increases the Necessity for Homologous Recombination Repair Along with the Indispensability of Non-Homologous End Joining. Cells 2020; 9:E889. [PMID: 32260562 PMCID: PMC7226794 DOI: 10.3390/cells9040889] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2020] [Revised: 03/29/2020] [Accepted: 03/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Technical improvements in clinical radiotherapy for maximizing cytotoxicity to the tumor while limiting negative impact on co-irradiated healthy tissues include the increasing use of particle therapy (e.g., proton therapy) worldwide. Yet potential differences in the biology of DNA damage induction and repair between irradiation with X-ray photons and protons remain elusive. We compared the differences in DNA double strand break (DSB) repair and survival of cells compromised in non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), homologous recombination repair (HRR) or both, after irradiation with an equal dose of X-ray photons, entrance plateau (EP) protons, and mid spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) protons. We used super-resolution microscopy to investigate potential differences in spatial distribution of DNA damage foci upon irradiation. While DNA damage foci were equally distributed throughout the nucleus after X-ray photon irradiation, we observed more clustered DNA damage foci upon proton irradiation. Furthermore, deficiency in essential NHEJ proteins delayed DNA repair kinetics and sensitized cells to both, X-ray photon and proton irradiation, whereas deficiency in HRR proteins sensitized cells only to proton irradiation. We assume that NHEJ is indispensable for processing DNA DSB independent of the irradiation source, whereas the importance of HRR rises with increasing energy of applied irradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Klaudia Szymonowicz
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
| | - Adam Krysztofiak
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
| | - Jansje van der Linden
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
| | - Ajvar Kern
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (A.K.); (B.K.); (M.V.); (B.T.)
| | - Simon Deycmar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Laboratory for Applied Radiobiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; (S.D.); (M.P.)
| | - Sebastian Oeck
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
| | - Anthony Squire
- Institute of Experimental Immunology and Imaging, Imaging Center Essen, University Hospital Essen, 45122 Essen, Germany;
| | - Benjamin Koska
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (A.K.); (B.K.); (M.V.); (B.T.)
| | - Julian Hlouschek
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
| | - Melanie Vüllings
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (A.K.); (B.K.); (M.V.); (B.T.)
| | - Christian Neander
- Institute of Developmental Cancer Therapeutics, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; (C.N.); (J.T.S.)
- Division of Solid Tumor Translational Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK, partner site Essen) and German Cancer Research Center, DKFZ, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jens T. Siveke
- Institute of Developmental Cancer Therapeutics, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; (C.N.); (J.T.S.)
- Division of Solid Tumor Translational Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK, partner site Essen) and German Cancer Research Center, DKFZ, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Johann Matschke
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
| | - Martin Pruschy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Laboratory for Applied Radiobiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; (S.D.); (M.P.)
| | - Beate Timmermann
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (A.K.); (B.K.); (M.V.); (B.T.)
- Division of Solid Tumor Translational Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK, partner site Essen) and German Cancer Research Center, DKFZ, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Particle Therapy, West German Proton Therapy Center Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany
| | - Verena Jendrossek
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Hypofractionation in Prostate Cancer Using Proton Beam. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 105:723-726. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.08.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2019] [Revised: 08/01/2019] [Accepted: 08/06/2019] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
|
19
|
Draulans C, De Roover R, van der Heide UA, Haustermans K, Pos F, Smeenk RJ, De Boer H, Depuydt T, Kunze-Busch M, Isebaert S, Kerkmeijer L. Stereotactic body radiation therapy with optional focal lesion ablative microboost in prostate cancer: Topical review and multicenter consensus. Radiother Oncol 2019; 140:131-142. [PMID: 31276989 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.06.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2019] [Revised: 06/13/2019] [Accepted: 06/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is gaining interest by the recent publication of the first phase III trials on prostate SBRT and the promising results of many other phase II trials. Before long term results became available, the major concern for implementing SBRT in PCa in daily clinical practice was the potential risk of late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. A number of recently published trials, including late outcome and toxicity data, contributed to the growing evidence for implementation of SBRT for PCa in daily clinical practice. However, there exists substantial variability in delivering SBRT for PCa. The aim of this topical review is to present a number of prospective trials and retrospective analyses of SBRT in the treatment of PCa. We focus on the treatment strategies and techniques used in these trials. In addition, recent literature on a simultaneous integrated boost to the tumor lesion, which could create an additional value in the SBRT treatment of PCa, was described. Furthermore, we discuss the multicenter consensus of the FLAME consortium on SBRT for PCa with a focal boost to the macroscopic intraprostatic tumor nodule(s).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cédric Draulans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium; Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Belgium.
| | - Robin De Roover
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium; Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Belgium.
| | - Uulke A van der Heide
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Karin Haustermans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium; Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Belgium.
| | - Floris Pos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Robert Jan Smeenk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Hans De Boer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Tom Depuydt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium; Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Belgium.
| | - Martina Kunze-Busch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Sofie Isebaert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium; Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Belgium.
| | - Linda Kerkmeijer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Mohiuddin M, Lynch C, Gao M, Hartsell W. Early clinical results of proton spatially fractionated GRID radiation therapy (SFGRT). Br J Radiol 2019; 93:20190572. [PMID: 31651185 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190572] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Approximately 70 patients with large and bulky tumors refractory to prior treatments were treated with photon spatially fractionated GRID radiation (SFGRT). We identified 10 additional patients who clinically needed GRID but could not be treated with photons due to adjacent critical organs. We developed a proton SFGRT technique, and we report treatment of these 10 patients. METHODS Subject data were reviewed for clinical results and dosimetric data. 50% of the patients were metastatic at the time of treatment and five had previous photon radiation to the local site but not via GRID. They were treated with 15-20 cobalt Gray equivalent using a single proton GRID field with an average beamlet count of 22.6 (range 7-51). 80% received an average adjuvant radiation dose to the GRID region of 40.8Gy (range 13.7-63.8Gy). Four received subsequent systemic therapy. RESULTS The median follow-up time was 5.9 months (1.1-18.9). At last follow-up, seven patients were alive and three had died. Two patients who had died from metastatic disease had local shrinkage of tumor. Of those alive, four had complete or partial response, two had partial response but later progressed, and one had no response. For all patients, the tumor regression/local symptom improvement rate was 80%. 50% had acute side-effects of grade1/2 only and all were well-tolerated. CONCLUSION In circumstances where patients cannot receive photon GRID, proton SFGRT is clinically feasible and effective, with a similar side-effect profile. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Proton GRID should be considered as a treatment option earlier in the disease course for patients who cannot be treated by photon GRID.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Majid Mohiuddin
- Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center 4455 Weaver Pkwy, Warrenville, IL 60555.,Radiation Oncology Consultants, Ltd. 700 Commerce Drive, Suite 500, Oak Brook, IL 60523
| | - Connor Lynch
- Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center 4455 Weaver Pkwy, Warrenville, IL 60555
| | - Mingcheng Gao
- Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center 4455 Weaver Pkwy, Warrenville, IL 60555
| | - William Hartsell
- Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center 4455 Weaver Pkwy, Warrenville, IL 60555.,Radiation Oncology Consultants, Ltd. 700 Commerce Drive, Suite 500, Oak Brook, IL 60523
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Ricardi U, Maraldo MV, Levis M, Parikh RR. Proton Therapy For Lymphomas: Current State Of The Art. Onco Targets Ther 2019; 12:8033-8046. [PMID: 31632057 PMCID: PMC6781741 DOI: 10.2147/ott.s220730] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2019] [Accepted: 09/13/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
The combination of brief chemo-radiotherapy provides high cure rates and represents the first line of treatment for many lymphoma patients. As a result, a high proportion of long-term survivors may experience treatment-related toxic events many years later. Excess and unintended radiation dose to organs at risk (particularly heart, lungs and breasts) may translate in an increased risk of cardiovascular events and second cancers after a few decades. Minimizing dose to organs at risk is thus pivotal to restrain the risk of long-term complications. Proton therapy, with its peculiar physic properties, may help to better spare organs at risk and consequently to reduce toxicities especially in patients receiving mediastinal radiotherapy. Herein, we review the physical basis of proton therapy and the rationale for its implementation in lymphoma patients, with a detailed description of the clinical data. We also discuss the potential disadvantages and uncertainties of protons that may limit their application and critically review the dosimetric studies comparing the risk of late complications between proton and photon radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Maja V Maraldo
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Mario Levis
- Department of Oncology, University of Torino, Torino, Italy
| | - Rahul R Parikh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Sánchez‐Parcerisa D, López‐Aguirre M, Dolcet Llerena A, Udías JM. MultiRBE: Treatment planning for protons with selective radiobiological effectiveness. Med Phys 2019; 46:4276-4284. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.13718] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2018] [Revised: 06/19/2019] [Accepted: 07/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Sánchez‐Parcerisa
- Grupo de Física Nuclear & IPARCOS, Departamento de Estructura de la Materia, Física Térmica y Electrónica CEI Moncloa Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040Madrid Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC) Madrid Spain
| | - Miguel López‐Aguirre
- Grupo de Física Nuclear & IPARCOS, Departamento de Estructura de la Materia, Física Térmica y Electrónica CEI Moncloa Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040Madrid Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC) Madrid Spain
| | | | - José Manuel Udías
- Grupo de Física Nuclear & IPARCOS, Departamento de Estructura de la Materia, Física Térmica y Electrónica CEI Moncloa Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040Madrid Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC) Madrid Spain
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Carrier F, Liao Y, Mendenhall N, Guerrieri P, Todor D, Ahmad A, Dominello M, Joiner MC, Burmeister J. Three Discipline Collaborative Radiation Therapy (3DCRT) Special Debate: I would treat prostate cancer with proton therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2019; 20:7-14. [PMID: 31166085 PMCID: PMC6612688 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12621] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2019] [Revised: 05/03/2019] [Accepted: 05/03/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- France Carrier
- Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of MarylandBaltimoreMDUSA
| | - Yixiang Liao
- Department of Radiation OncologyRush University Medical CenterChicagoILUSA
| | | | | | - Dorin Todor
- Department of Radiation OncologyVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondVAUSA
| | - Anis Ahmad
- Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Miami, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miller School of MedicineMiamiFLUSA
| | - Michael Dominello
- Department of OncologyWayne State University School of MedicineDetroitMIUSA
| | - Michael C. Joiner
- Department of OncologyWayne State University School of MedicineDetroitMIUSA
| | - Jay Burmeister
- Department of OncologyWayne State University School of MedicineDetroitMIUSA
- Gershenson Radiation Oncology CenterBarbara Ann Karmanos Cancer InstituteDetroitMIUSA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Kotecha R, Mehta MP, Chang EL, Brown PD, Suh JH, Lo SS, Das S, Samawi HH, Keith J, Perry J, Sahgal A. Updates in the management of intradural spinal cord tumors: a radiation oncology focus. Neuro Oncol 2019; 21:707-718. [PMID: 30977511 PMCID: PMC6556849 DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noz014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Primary spinal cord tumors represent a hetereogeneous group of central nervous system malignancies whose management is complex given the relatively uncommon nature of the disease and variety of tumor subtypes, functional neurologic deficits from the tumor, and potential morbidities associated with definitive treatment. Advances in neuroimaging; integration of diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive molecular testing into tumor classification; and developments in neurosurgical techniques have refined the current role of radiotherapy in the multimodal management of patients with primary spinal cord tumors, and corroborated the need for prospective, multidisciplinary discussion and treatment decision making. Radiotherapeutic technological advances have dramatically improved the entire continuum from treatment planning to treatment delivery, and the development of stereotactic radiosurgery and proton radiotherapy provides new radiotherapy options for patients treated in the definitive, adjuvant, or salvage setting. The objective of this comprehensive review is to provide a contemporary overview of the management of primary intradural spinal cord tumors, with a focus on radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rupesh Kotecha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, USA
- Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Minesh P Mehta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, USA
- Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Eric L Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Paul D Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - John H Suh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Simon S Lo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Sunit Das
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Haider H Samawi
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Julia Keith
- Department of Anatomical Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - James Perry
- Department of Neurology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Comparison of Proton and Photon Beam Irradiation in Radiation-Induced Intestinal Injury Using a Mouse Model. Int J Mol Sci 2019; 20:ijms20081894. [PMID: 30999572 PMCID: PMC6514697 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20081894] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2019] [Revised: 04/15/2019] [Accepted: 04/16/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
When radiotherapy is applied to the abdomen or pelvis, normal tissue toxicity in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is considered a major dose-limiting factor. Proton beam therapy has a specific advantage in terms of reduced doses to normal tissues. This study investigated the fundamental differences between proton- and X-ray-induced intestinal injuries in mouse models. C57BL/6J mice were irradiated with 6-MV X-rays or 230-MeV protons and were sacrificed after 84 h. The number of surviving crypts per circumference of the jejunum was identified using Hematoxylin and Eosin staining. Diverse intestinal stem cell (ISC) populations and apoptotic cells were analyzed using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and a terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick-end labelling (TUNEL) assay, respectively. The crypt microcolony assay revealed a radiation-dose-dependent decrease in the number of regenerative crypts in the mouse jejunum; proton irradiation was more effective than X-ray irradiation with a relative biological effectiveness of 1.14. The jejunum is the most sensitive to radiations, followed by the ileum and the colon. Both types of radiation therapy decreased the number of radiosensitive, active cycling ISC populations. However, a higher number of radioresistant, reserve ISC populations and Paneth cells were eradicated by proton irradiation than X-ray irradiation, as shown in the IHC analyses. The TUNEL assay revealed that proton irradiation was more effective in enhancing apoptotic cell death than X-ray irradiation. This study conducted a detailed analysis on the effects of proton irradiation versus X-ray irradiation on intestinal crypt regeneration in mouse models. Our findings revealed that proton irradiation has a direct effect on ISC populations, which may result in an increase in the risk of GI toxicity during proton beam therapy.
Collapse
|
26
|
Proton versus photon-based radiation therapy for prostate cancer: emerging evidence and considerations in the era of value-based cancer care. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2019; 22:509-521. [PMID: 30967625 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-019-0140-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2018] [Revised: 01/30/2019] [Accepted: 02/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Advances in radiation technology have transformed treatment options for patients with localized prostate cancer. The evolution of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have allowed physicians to spare surrounding normal organs and reduce adverse effects. The introduction of proton beam technology and its physical advantage of depositing its energy in tissue at the end-of-range maximum may potentially spare critical organs such as the bladder and rectum in prostate cancer patients. Data thus far are limited to large, observational studies that have not yet demonstrated a definite benefit of protons over conventional treatment with IMRT. The cost of proton beam treatment adds to the controversy within the field. METHODS We performed an extensive literature review for all proton treatment-related prostate cancer studies. We discuss the history of proton beam technology, as well as its role in the treatment of prostate cancer, associated controversies, novel technology trends, a discussion of cost-effectiveness, and an overview of the ongoing modern large prospective studies that aim to resolve the debate between protons and photons for prostate cancer. RESULTS Present data have demonstrated that proton beam therapy is safe and effective compared with the standard treatment options for prostate cancer. While dosimetric studies suggest lower whole-body radiation dose and a theoretically higher relative biological effectiveness in prostate cancer compared with photons, no studies have demonstrated a clear benefit with protons. CONCLUSIONS Evolving trends in proton treatment delivery and proton center business models are helping to reduce costs. Introduction of existing technology into proton delivery allows further control of organ motion and addressing organs-at-risk. Finally, the much-awaited contemporary studies comparing photon with proton-based treatments, with primary endpoints of patient-reported quality-of-life, will help us understand the differences between proton and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era.
Collapse
|
27
|
Stewart RD, Carlson DJ, Butkus MP, Hawkins R, Friedrich T, Scholz M. A comparison of mechanism-inspired models for particle relative biological effectiveness (RBE). Med Phys 2018; 45:e925-e952. [PMID: 30421808 DOI: 10.1002/mp.13207] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2018] [Revised: 09/05/2018] [Accepted: 09/13/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE The application of heavy ion beams in cancer therapy must account for the increasing relative biological effectiveness (RBE) with increasing penetration depth when determining dose prescriptions and organ at risk (OAR) constraints in treatment planning. Because RBE depends in a complex manner on factors such as the ion type, energy, cell and tissue radiosensitivity, physical dose, biological endpoint, and position within and outside treatment fields, biophysical models reflecting these dependencies are required for the personalization and optimization of treatment plans. AIM To review and compare three mechanism-inspired models which predict the complexities of particle RBE for various ion types, energies, linear energy transfer (LET) values and tissue radiation sensitivities. METHODS The review of models and mechanisms focuses on the Local Effect Model (LEM), the Microdosimetric-Kinetic (MK) model, and the Repair-Misrepair-Fixation (RMF) model in combination with the Monte Carlo Damage Simulation (MCDS). These models relate the induction of potentially lethal double strand breaks (DSBs) to the subsequent interactions and biological processing of DSB into more lethal forms of damage. A key element to explain the increased biological effectiveness of high LET ions compared to MV x rays is the characterization of the number and local complexity (clustering) of the initial DSB produced within a cell. For high LET ions, the spatial density of DSB induction along an ion's trajectory is much greater than along the path of a low LET electron, such as the secondary electrons produced by the megavoltage (MV) x rays used in conventional radiation therapy. The main aspects of the three models are introduced and the conceptual similarities and differences are critiqued and highlighted. Model predictions are compared in terms of the RBE for DSB induction and for reproductive cell survival. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Comparisons of the RBE for DSB induction and for cell survival are presented for proton (1 H), helium (4 He), and carbon (12 C) ions for the therapeutically most relevant range of ion beam energies. The reviewed models embody mechanisms of action acting over the spatial scales underlying the biological processing of potentially lethal DSB into more lethal forms of damage. Differences among the number and types of input parameters, relevant biological targets, and the computational approaches among the LEM, MK and RMF models are summarized and critiqued. Potential experiments to test some of the seemingly contradictory aspects of the models are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert D Stewart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356043, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - David J Carlson
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Michael P Butkus
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Roland Hawkins
- Radiation Oncology Center, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA, 70121, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Proton therapy for prostate cancer: A review of the rationale, evidence, and current state. Urol Oncol 2018; 37:628-636. [PMID: 30527342 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.11.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2018] [Revised: 11/07/2018] [Accepted: 11/12/2018] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer have many curative treatment options including several different radiotherapeutic approaches. Proton radiation is one such radiation treatment modality and, due to its unique physical properties, offers the appealing potential of reduced side effects without sacrificing cancer control. In this review, we examine the intriguing dosimetric rationale and theoretical benefit of proton radiation for prostate cancer and highlight the results of preclinical modeling studies. We then discuss the current state of the clinical evidence for proton efficacy and toxicity, derived from both large claim-based datasets and prospective patient-reported data. The result is that the data are mixed, and clinical equipoise persists in this area. We place these studies into context by summarizing the economics of proton therapy and the changing practice patterns of prostate proton irradiation. Finally, we await the results of a large prospective randomized clinical trial currently accruing and also a large prospective pragmatic comparative study which will provide more rigorous evidence regarding the clinical and comparative effectiveness of proton therapy for prostate cancer.
Collapse
|