Comparison of adverse effects of proton and X-ray chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer using an adaptive dose-volume histogram analysis

Comparison of proton-based definitive chemoradiotherapy and surgery-based therapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multi-center retrospective Japanese cohort study

BACKGROUND

Proton-based, definitive chemoradiotherapy (P-CRT) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) previously showed comparable survival outcomes with the surgery-based therapy, i.e., neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by esophagectomy (NAC-S), in a single-institutional study. This study aimed to validate this message in a Japanese multicenter study.

METHODS

Eleven Japanese esophageal cancer specialty hospitals have participated. A total of 518 cases with clinical Stage I-IVA ESCC between 2010 and 2019, including 168 P-CRT and 350 NAC-S patients, were enrolled and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Propensity-score weighting analyses with overlap weighting for confounding adjustment were used.

RESULTS

The 3-year overall survival (OS) of the P-CRT group was equivalent to the NAC-S group (74.8% vs. 72.7%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-1.25). Although, the 3-year P-CRT group progression-free survival (PFS) was inferior to the NAC-S group (51.4% vs. 59.6%, HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.04-1.85), the progression P-CRT group cases showed better survival than the NAC-S group (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.88), largely because of salvage surgery or endoscopic submucosal dissection for local progression. The survival advantage of P-CRT over NAC-S was more pronounced in the cT1-2 (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.29-1.26) and cStage I-II (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24-1.07) subgroups, although this trend was not evident in other populations, such as cT3-4 and cStage III-IVA.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton-based CRT for ESCC showed equivalent OS to surgery-based therapy. Especially for patients with cT1-2 and cStage I-II disease, proton-based CRT has the potential to serve as a first-line treatment.

Cost-utility analysis of proton beam therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer in Japan

PURPOSE

Proton beam therapy (PBT) has recently been included in Japan's health insurance benefit package for certain cancer types. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of PBT as a replacement for conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC) that is not covered by social insurance.

METHODS

We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PBT as a replacement for 3D-CRT, using clinical evidence from the literature and expert opinions. We used an economic model, decision tree, and Markov model to illustrate the courses followed by patients with LAEC. Effectiveness was estimated as quality-adjusted life years (QALY) using utility weights for the health state. Social insurance fees were calculated as costs. We assumed two base cases depending on the two existing levels of fees for PBT in social insurance: 2,735,000 Japanese yen (US$20,652) or 1,600,000 yen (US$13,913). The stability of the ICER against these assumptions was appraised using sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The effectiveness of PBT and 3D-CRT was 2.62 and 2.51 QALY, respectively. The estimated ICER was 14,025,268 yen (US$121,958) per QALY for the higher fee level and 7,026,402 yen (US$61,099) for the lower fee level. According to the Japanese threshold for cost-effectiveness of anticancer therapy of 7,500,000 yen (US$65,217) per QALY gain, the inclusion of PBT for LAEC in the benefit package of social insurance is cost-effective if a lower fee is applied.

CONCLUSION

PBT is a cost-effective alternative to 3D-CRT for LAEC and making it available to patients under social insurance could be justifiable.

An analysis of muscle growth after proton beam therapy for pediatric cancer

Retardation of growth and development is a well-known late effect after radiotherapy for pediatric patients. The goal of the study was to examine the effect of proton beam therapy (PBT) on the growth of muscles included in the irradiated area. The subjects were 17 pediatric patients (age ≤ 5 years) who received PBT with a treatment field including a muscle on only one side out of a pair of symmetrical bilateral muscles and had imaging evaluations for at least 1 year after PBT. The thicknesses of the irradiated and non-irradiated (contralateral) muscles were measured retrospectively on CT or MRI axial images collected before and after PBT. The change of thickness divided by the period (years) for each muscle was compared between the irradiated and contralateral sides. Correlations of muscle growth with irradiation dose and age at the start of treatment were also evaluated. The median observation period was 39.2 months. The measurement sites included the erector spinae (n = 9), gluteus maximus (n = 5) and rhomboids + trapezius (n = 3) muscles. The average changes in muscle thickness were 0.24 mm/year on the irradiated side and 1.19 mm/year on the contralateral side, showing significantly reduced growth on the irradiated side (P = 0.001). Younger patients had greater muscle growth. Irradiation dose was not significant, but muscle growth tended to decrease as the dose increased, and muscles irradiated at >50 Gy (RBE) showed little growth. These results show that muscle growth is affected by PBT and that long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate muscle growth retardation.

Dose Evaluation in 2-Phase Method for Advanced Esophageal Cancer by Hybrid Irradiation Techniques

Purpose

In concurrent chemoradiotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer, a 2-phase method consisting of initial irradiation of a wide elective nodal region and boost irradiation of the primary lesion is commonly employed. Although dose escalation to the primary lesion may be required to achieve higher local control rates, the radiation dose to critical organs must not exceed dose constraints. To achieve an optimum balance of dose prescription and dose reduction to surrounding organs, such as the lungs and heart, we compared hybrid dose distributions and investigated the best combination of the following recent irradiation techniques: volumetric modulation arc therapy (VMAT), proton broad-beam irradiation, and intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT).

Materials and Methods

Forty-five patients with advanced esophageal cancer whose primary lesions were located in the middle- or lower-thoracic region were studied. Radiotherapy plans for the initial and boost irradiation in the 2-phase method were calculated using VMAT, proton broad-beam irradiation, and IMPT calculation codes, and the dose-volume histogram indices of the lungs and heart for the accumulated plans were compared.

Results

In plans using boost proton irradiation with a prescribed dose of 60 Gy(RBE), all dose-volume histogram indices were significantly below the tolerance limits. Initial and boost irradiation with VMAT resulted in the median dose of V30 Gy(RBE)(heart) of 27.4% and an achievement rate below the tolerance limit of 57.8% (26 cases). In simulations of dose escalation up to 70 Gy(RBE), initial and boost IMPT resulted in the highest achievement rate, satisfying all dose constraints in 95.6% (43 cases).

Conclusion

Applying VMAT to both initial and boost irradiation is not recommended because of the increased risk of the cardiac dose exceeding the tolerance limit. IMPT may allow dose escalation of up to 70 Gy(RBE) without radiation risks to the lungs and heart in the treatment of advanced esophageal cancer.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy using proton beams can reduce cardiopulmonary morbidity in esophageal cancer patients: a systematic review

This systematic review was performed to investigate the superiority of proton beam therapy (PBT) to photon-based radiotherapy (RT) in treating esophageal cancer patients, especially those with poor cardiopulmonary function. The MEDLINE (PubMed) and ICHUSHI (Japana Centra Revuo Medicina) databases were searched from January 2000 to August 2020 for studies evaluating one end point at least as follows; overall survival, progression-free survival, grade ≥ 3 cardiopulmonary toxicities, dose-volume histograms, or lymphopenia or absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs) in esophageal cancer patients treated with PBT or photon-based RT. Of 286 selected studies, 23 including 1 randomized control study, 2 propensity matched analyses, and 20 cohort studies were eligible for qualitative review. Overall survival and progression-free survival were better after PBT than after photon-based RT, but the difference was significant in only one of seven studies. The rate of grade 3 cardiopulmonary toxicities was lower after PBT (0-13%) than after photon-based RT (7.1-30.3%). Dose-volume histograms revealed better results for PBT than photon-based RT. Three of four reports evaluating the ALC demonstrated a significantly higher ALC after PBT than after photon-based RT. Our review found that PBT resulted in a favorable trend in the survival rate and had an excellent dose distribution, contributing to reduced cardiopulmonary toxicities and a maintained number of lymphocytes. These results warrant novel prospective trials to validate the clinical evidence.

Efficacy and Safety in Proton Therapy and Photon Therapy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Importance

Radiotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Proton therapy has unique physical properties and higher relative biological effectiveness. However, whether proton therapy has greater benefit than photon therapy is still unclear.

Objective

To evaluate whether proton was associated with better efficacy and safety outcomes, including dosimetric, prognosis, and toxic effects outcomes, compared with photon therapy and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of proton therapy singly.

Data Sources

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SinoMed, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases was conducted for articles published through November 25, 2021, and updated to March 25, 2023.

Study Selection

For the comparison of proton and photon therapy, studies including dosimetric, prognosis, and associated toxic effects outcomes were included. The separate evaluation of proton therapy evaluated the same metrics.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data on study design, individual characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. If I2 was greater than 50%, the random-effects model was selected. This meta-analysis is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were organs at risk (OARs) dosimetric outcomes, prognosis (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], and objective response rate [ORR]), and radiation-related toxic effects.

Results

A total of 45 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For dosimetric analysis, proton therapy was associated with significantly reduced OARs dose. Meta-analysis showed that photon therapy was associated with poor OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61; I2 = 11%), but no difference in PFS was observed. Subgroup analysis showed worse OS (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.78; I2 = 34%) and PFS (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; I2 = 7%) in the radical therapy group with photon therapy. The pathological complete response rate was similar between groups. Proton therapy was associated with significantly decreased grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis and pericardial effusion, and grade 4 or higher lymphocytopenia. Single-rate analysis of proton therapy found 89% OS and 65% PFS at 1 year, 71% OS and 56% PFS at 2 years, 63% OS and 48% PFS at 3 years, and 56% OS and 42% PFS at 5 years. The incidence of grade 2 or higher radiation esophagitis was 50%, grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis was 2%, grade 2 or higher pleural effusion was 4%, grade 2 or higher pericardial effusion was 3%, grade 3 or higher radiation esophagitis was 8%, and grade 4 or higher lymphocytopenia was 17%.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this meta-analysis, proton therapy was associated with reduced OARs doses and toxic effects and improved prognosis compared with photon therapy for esophageal cancer, but caution is warranted. In the future, these findings should be further validated in randomized clinical trials.

Clinical impact of radiation-induced myocardial damage detected by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and dose-volume histogram parameters of the left ventricle as prognostic factors of cardiac events after chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer

This prospective study aimed to evaluate whether radiation (RT)-induced myocardial damage by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging could be a predictor of cardiac events after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for esophageal cancer and determine the dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters of the left ventricle (LV) in predicting cardiac events. CMR imaging was performed before and 6 months after CRT in patients receiving definitive CRT. RT-induced myocardial damage was defined as abnormal CMR findings indicating myocardial fibrosis corresponding to an isodose line of ≥30 Gy. The cutoff values of the LV DVH parameters were calculated using the receiver operating characteristic curve based on the presence of RT-induced myocardial damage. The prognostic factors related to cardiac events of Grade 3 or higher were examined. Twenty-three patients were enrolled in the study. RT-induced myocardial damage by late gadolinium enhancement and/or an increase of 100 ms or higher in native T1 post-CRT was detected in 10 of the 23 patients. LV V45 was the best predictive factor for RT-induced myocardial damage with a cutoff value of 2.1% and an area under the curve of 0.75. The median follow-up period was 82.1 months. The 5- and 7-year cumulative incidences of cardiac events of Grade 3 or higher were 14.7 and 22.4%, respectively. RT-induced myocardial damage and LV V45 were significant risk factors (P = 0.015 and P = 0.013, respectively). RT-induced myocardial damage is a significant predictor of cardiac events. LV V45 is associated with RT-induced myocardial damage and subsequent cardiac events.

Bone versus soft-tissue setup in proton therapy for patients with oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of patient positioning based on either bone or soft-tissue matching for PT in oesophageal cancer and its impact on plan adaptation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two retrospective patient cohorts treated with radiotherapy were included in the study. Cohort A consisted of 26 consecutive patients with a planning 4DCT scan (CT1) and a surveillance 4DCT scan (CT2) at fraction ten. Cohort B consisted of 17 patients selected based on large anatomical changes identified during treatment resulting in a rescan (CT2). Mean dose to the iCTV (sum of the CTVs in all respiratory phases) was 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions or 41.4 Gy (RBE) in 23 fractions. A nominal pencil beam scanning plan was created using two posterior beams and robust optimization (5 mm setup, 3.5% range). For each patient, two rigid registrations were made between average (avg) CT1 and CT2: a match on the vertebral column (bone match) and a match on the iCTV (soft-tissue match). Robustness towards setup (5 mm) and range (3.5%) errors was evaluated at CT2. Robustness towards respiration was evaluated by recalculation of the plan on all phases of the CT2 scan. Dose coverage <96% would trigger adaptation. The statistical significance (p-value <0.05) between dose coverage for the two registration methods was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.

RESULTS

All plans fulfilled V95%_iCTV>99% for the nominal plan and V95%_iCTV>97% for all respiratory phases and robustness scenarios at CT1. In two (8%) and three (18%) patients, V95%_iCTV<96% on CT2 for Cohort A and B, respectively when bone match was used. For soft-tissue match, V95%iCTV >96% for all patients. V95%_iCTV was significantly higher (p-value = 0.0001) for soft-tissue match than bone match.

CONCLUSION

Anatomical changes during the treatment course led to target dose deterioration and a need for plan adaptation when using a bone match.

SCOPE 2 - Still Answering the Unanswered Questions in Oesophageal Radiotherapy? SCOPE 2: a Randomised Phase II/III Trial to Study Radiotherapy Dose Escalation in Patients with Oesophageal Cancer Treated with Definitive Chemoradiation with an Embedded Phase II Trial for Patients with a Poor Early Response using Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography

The SCOPE 2 trial of definitive chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal cancer investigates the benefits of radiotherapy dose escalation and systemic therapy optimisation. The trial opened in 2016. The landscape of oesophageal cancer treatment over the lifetime of this trial has changed significantly and the protocol has evolved to reflect this. However, with the recent results of the Dutch phase III ART DECO study showing no improvement in local control or overall survival with radiotherapy dose escalation in a similar patient group, we sought to determine if the SCOPE 2 trial is still answering the key unanswered questions for oesophageal radiotherapy. Here we discuss the rationale behind the SCOPE 2 trial, outline the trial schema and review current data on dose escalation and outline recommendations for future areas of research.

Comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy beam configurations for treating thoracic esophageal cancer

•

Dosimetric benefit of proton over x-ray treatment for thoracic esophageal cancer.

•

Reduction of pulmonary and cardiac toxicity by proton therapy.

•

Intensity modulated proton therapy beam configurations designed by tumor location.

Background and purpose

Specific proton-beam configurations are needed to spare organs at risk (OARs), including lungs, heart, and spinal cord, when treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the thoracic region. This study aimed to propose new intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) beam configurations and to demonstrate the benefit of IMPT compared with intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMXT) for treating ESCC.

Material and methods

IMPT plans with three different beam angle configurations were generated on CT datasets of 25 ESCC patients that were treated with IMXT. The IMPT beam designs were two commonly-used beam configurations (anteroposterior and posterior oblique) and a recently proposed beam configuration (anterosuperior with posteroinferior). The target doses were 50–54 Gy(RBE) and 60–64 Gy(RBE) to the low-risk and high-risk target volumes, respectively. Robust optimization was applied for the IMPT plans. The differences in the dose-volume parameters between the IMXT and IMPT plans were compared.

Results

With target coverage comparable to standard IMXT, IMPT had significantly lower mean doses to the OARs. IMPT with an anteroposterior opposing beam generated the lowest lung dose (mean = 7.1 Gy(RBE), V₂₀ = 14.1%) and the anterosuperior with posteroinferior beam resulted in the lowest heart dose (mean = 12.8 Gy(RBE), V₃₀ = 15.7%) and liver dose (mean = 3.9 Gy(RBE), V₃₀ = 5.9%). For the subgroup of patients with an inferior tumor location (PTVs overlapping a part of the contoured heart), the novel beam demonstrated the optimal OARs sparing.

Conclusion

Compared with IMXT, the IMPT plans significantly reduced the radiation dose to the surrounding organs when treating ESCC. IMPT beam configuration selection depends on the tumor location relative to the heart.

Successful treatment with proton beam therapy for a solitary sternal metastasis of breast cancer: a case report

Background

Breast cancer infrequently metastasizes to the sternum as solitary metastasis. We experienced successful treatment with proton beam therapy for a case of sternal metastasis of breast cancer. This case demonstrates for the first time the role of proton therapy in the treatment of oligometastatic sternal metastasis with limited tolerance of normal tissue due to previous photon irradiation.

Case presentation

A 40-year-old Japanese female presented with lumpiness in her left breast. The patient was diagnosed with breast cancer (cT1N0M0, cStage IA) and underwent partial mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection. After the mastectomy, the patient received radiation therapy with 50 Gy in 25 fractions for initial irradiation of the left breast. After the initial irradiation of 50 Gy, the patient received 10 Gy in five fractions of a sequential boost for the tumor bed to a total dose of 60 Gy. Although the patient was administered tamoxifen after radiation therapy, solitary sternal metastasis occurred 6 months after radiation therapy. She refused chemotherapy and requested proton beam therapy for her sternal metastasis. The daily proton beam therapy fractions were 2.5 relative biological effectiveness, receiving a total dose of 70 Gy relative biological effectiveness. An acute side effect of grade 2 dermatitis according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. occurred during proton beam therapy, but there was no acute or late complication of more than grade 3. At 3 years after proton beam therapy, the patient remains in complete remission without surgery or chemotherapy.

Discussion and conclusion

Proton beam therapy for solitary sternal metastasis of breast cancer is considered to be a therapeutic option.

Long-term survival after definitive proton beam therapy for oligorecurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a case report

Background

Radical esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma has improved survival, but the rate of recurrence is high. Patients of recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after failure of chemotherapy have a poor prognosis. We herein report the achievement of long-term survival after definitive proton beam therapy for oligorecurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after failure of chemotherapy.

Case presentation

A 60-year-old Japanese man was diagnosed as having squamous cell carcinoma of the lower thoracic esophagus (cT2N0M0, stage IIA). He underwent two courses of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil, and esophagectomy with three-field lymphadenectomy was performed. Microscopic findings after resection showed two lymph node metastases (ypT2N1M0, stage IIB). Five months after resection, a computed tomography scan revealed a solitary liver metastasis in the S4 area. He underwent three courses of chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil; however, positron emission tomography revealed two lymph node metastases. Surgeons recommended second-line chemotherapy, but the patient refused chemotherapy and requested proton beam therapy. We performed proton beam therapy without chemotherapy for the liver metastasis and lymph node metastases, with total doses of 79.2 and 60 Gy relative biological effectiveness, respectively, according to the tumor location. An acute side effect of grade 1 dermatitis occurred after proton beam therapy, but there was no acute or late complication of more than grade 2. The patient remains in complete remission 5 years after treatment without surgery or chemotherapy.

Discussion and conclusions

Proton beam therapy exerted a curative effect on oligorecurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. This is the first report on the achievement of long-term survival after definitive proton beam therapy for oligorecurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Executive Summary of Clinical and Technical Guidelines for Esophageal Cancer Proton Beam Therapy From the Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group Thoracic and Gastrointestinal Subcommittees

Radiation therapy (RT) is an integral component of potentially curative management of esophageal cancer (EC). However, RT can cause significant acute and late morbidity due to excess radiation exposure to nearby critical organs, especially the heart and lungs. Sparing these organs from both low and high radiation dose has been demonstrated to achieve clinically meaningful reductions in toxicity and may improve long-term survival. Accruing dosimetry and clinical evidence support the consideration of proton beam therapy (PBT) for the management of EC. There are critical treatment planning and delivery uncertainties that should be considered when treating EC with PBT, especially as there may be substantial motion-related interplay effects. The Particle Therapy Co-operative Group Thoracic and Gastrointestinal Subcommittees jointly developed guidelines regarding patient selection, treatment planning, clinical trials, and future directions of PBT for EC.

[The role of proton therapy in esophageal cancer]

Because of the physical properties of proton beam radiation therapy (PT), which allows energy to be deposited at a specific depth with a rapid energy fall-off beyond that depth, PT has several theoretical advantages over photon radiation therapy for esophageal cancer (EC). Protons have the potential to reduce the dose to healthy tissue and to more safely allow treatment of tumors near critical organs, dose escalation, trimodal treatment, and re-irradiation. In recent years, larger multicenter retrospective studies have been published showing excellent survival rates, lower than expected toxicities and even better outcomes with PT than with photon radiotherapy even using IMRT or VMAT techniques. Although PT was associated with reduced toxicities, postoperative complications, and hospital stays compared to photon radiation therapy, these studies all had inherent biases in relation with patient selection for PT. These observations were recently confirmed by a randomized phase II study in locally advanced EC that showed significantly reduced toxicities with protons compared with IMRT. Currently, two randomized phase III trials (NRG-GI006 in the US and PROTECT in Europe) are being conducted to confirm whether protons could become the standard of care in locally advanced and resectable esophageal cancers.

The impact of lymphopenia during chemoradiotherapy using photons or protons on the clinical outcomes of esophageal cancer patients

We assessed the development of lymphopenia during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) using X-ray versus proton beams and the impact on survival in patients with esophageal cancer. Among patients with esophageal cancer who were administered concurrent CRT with a curative intent at our institute from 2014 to 2018, 69 (15 receiving X-ray radiotherapy (XRT) and 54 receiving proton beam therapy [PBT]) who underwent weekly blood testing during treatment were enrolled. The absolute lymphocyte counts (ALC) at 1, 5 and 6 weeks were significantly higher in the patients who received PBT than in those who received XRT (p = 0.002, p = 0.006 and p = 0.009, respectively), and a similar trend in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was observed (p = 0.003 at 5 weeks). The 2-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates tended to be higher in the patients who maintained an ALC ≥200 compared with those who did not (p = 0.083 and p = 0.053, respectively), and similar trends were observed in the NLR (p = 0.061 and p = 0.038, respectively). Dose-volume analysis revealed significant correlations between volumes of the thoracic bones irradiated by 5-50 Gy and minimum ALCs and maximum NLR. These findings suggested that PBT prevented the development of lymphopenia during CRT by reducing the irradiated volume of the thoracic bone, and the maintained lymphocyte count is possibly one of the early predictors for survival in patients with esophageal cancer.

Current status and application of proton therapy for esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer remains one of the leading causes of death from cancer across the world despite advances in multimodality therapy. Although early-stage disease can often be treated surgically, the current state of the art for locally advanced disease is concurrent chemoradiation, followed by surgery whenever possible. The uniform midline tumor location puts a strong importance on the need for precise delivery of radiation that would minimize dose to the heart and lungs, and the biophysical properties of proton beam makes this modality potential ideal for esophageal cancer treatment. This review covers the current state of knowledge of proton therapy for esophageal cancer, focusing on published retrospective single- and multi-institutional clinical studies, and emerging data from prospective clinical trials, that support the benefit of protons vs photon-based radiation in reducing postoperative complications, cardiac toxicity, and severe radiation induced immune suppression, which may improve survival outcomes for patients. In addition, we discuss the incorporation of immunotherapy to the curative management of esophageal cancers in the not-too-distant future. However, there is still a lack of high-level evidence to support proton therapy in the treatment of esophageal cancer, and proton therapy has its limitations in clinical application. It is expected to see the results of future large-scale randomized clinical trials and the continuous improvement of proton radiotherapy technology.

A Critical Review of Radiation Therapy: From Particle Beam Therapy (Proton, Carbon, and BNCT) to Beyond

In this paper, we discuss the role of particle therapy—a novel radiation therapy (RT) that has shown rapid progress and widespread use in recent years—in multidisciplinary treatment. Three types of particle therapies are currently used for cancer treatment: proton beam therapy (PBT), carbon-ion beam therapy (CIBT), and boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT). PBT and CIBT have been reported to have excellent therapeutic results owing to the physical characteristics of their Bragg peaks. Variable drug therapies, such as chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and immunotherapy, are combined in various treatment strategies, and treatment effects have been improved. BNCT has a high dose concentration for cancer in terms of nuclear reactions with boron. BNCT is a next-generation RT that can achieve cancer cell-selective therapeutic effects, and its effectiveness strongly depends on the selective ¹⁰B accumulation in cancer cells by concomitant boron preparation. Therefore, drug delivery research, including nanoparticles, is highly desirable. In this review, we introduce both clinical and basic aspects of particle beam therapy from the perspective of multidisciplinary treatment, which is expected to expand further in the future.

Proton therapy for patients with esophageal cancer: History, characteristics, clinical outcome and future direction of proton beam therapy

After the second war, Wilson who participated in development of the atomic bomb in Los Alamos studied peaceful use of atomic energy and proposed a property of proton beam that has potential to treat cancer. According to his proposal, the first patient was treated with proton beam therapy at the University of California Berkley in 1954. The first series of proton beam therapy for patients with esophageal cancer was reported from Japan in 1993. After that many proton facilities in Japan reported the clinical outcome of patients with esophageal cancer. Many dosimetric and clinical studies showed proton beam therapy for esophageal cancer was less toxic than photon beam therapy, however there is a paucity of randomized trials and evidence that proton beam therapy has clearly superior survival compared to photon therapy. Only one randomized trial has been conducted to study less toxicity for proton beam compared with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), which was stopped early because toxicities of IMRT were higher. A phase III study comparing overall survival between proton beam therapy and IMRT is now activated. A cost reduction for proton therapy is necessary to facilitate patient care and establishment of clinical evidence.

The Promise of Proton Beam Therapy for Oesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Dosimetric and Clinical Outcomes

AIMS

Due to its physical advantages over photon radiotherapy, proton beam therapy (PBT) has the potential to improve outcomes from oesophageal cancer. However, for many tumour sites, high-quality evidence supporting PBT use is limited. We carried out a systematic review of published literature of PBT in oesophageal cancer to ascertain potential benefits of this technology and to gauge the current state-of-the-art. We considered if further evaluation of this technology in oesophageal cancer is desirable.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science using structured search terms was carried out. Inclusion criteria included non-metastatic cancer, full articles and English language studies only. Articles deliberating technical aspects of PBT planning or delivery were excluded to maintain a clinical focus. Studies were divided into two sections: dosimetric and clinical studies; qualitatively synthesised.

RESULTS

In total, 467 records were screened, with 32 included for final qualitative synthesis. This included two prospective studies with the rest based on retrospective data. There was heterogeneity in treatment protocols, including treatment intent (neoadjuvant or definitive), dose, fractionation and chemotherapy used. Compared with photon radiotherapy, PBT seemed to reduce dose to organs at risk, especially lung and heart, although not for all reported parameters. Toxicity outcomes, including postoperative complications, were reduced compared with photon radiotherapy. Survival outcomes were reported to be at least comparable with photon radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of high-quality evidence supporting PBT use in oesophageal cancer. Wide variation in intent and treatment protocols means that the role and 'gold-standard' treatment protocol are yet to be defined. Current literature suggests significant benefit in terms of toxicity reduction, especially in the postoperative period, with comparable survival outcomes. PBT in oesophageal cancer holds significant promise for improving patient outcomes but requires robust systematic evaluation in prospective studies.

Review of clinical results of charged-particle therapy for esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer is one of the common causes of cancer-related death. The treatment for esophageal cancer, particularly unresectable cases, is a difficult problem. Reports about charged-particle therapy including proton beam therapy and carbon-ion radiotherapy for esophageal cancer have increased. The objective of this study was to review the clinical results of charged-particle therapy for esophageal cancer. Charged-particle therapy was used with an expectation of increasing overall survival with reducing toxicities because charged-particle therapy can reduce the irradiated dose for normal tissues around the target tumor due to its characteristics, hence the name Bragg peak. Proton beam therapy showed a superior distribution of irradiation dose over X-ray therapy including intensity-modulated radiotherapy in silico, but clinical results were not the same. Some reports suggested that proton beam therapy may reduce acute and late toxicities, particularly in the heart and lung, during and after treatment, although it cannot lead to a higher overall survival than that in X-ray therapy. On the other hand, there are a few reports about carbon-ion radiotherapy for esophageal cancer. The special feature of carbon-ion radiotherapy is that hypofractionated radiotherapy is possible as compared to that in X-ray therapy or proton beam therapy. However, the true clinical impact of proton beam therapy or carbon-ion radiotherapy remains unclear because there are no prospective clinical trials comparing charged-particle therapy to X-ray therapy. In view of charged-particle therapy may become one of the treatment choices for esophageal cancer, further studies are needed.

The Role of Modern Radiotherapy Technology in the Treatment of Esophageal Cancer

Radiation therapy (RT) has improved patient outcomes, but treatment-related complication rates remain high. In the conventional 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) era, there was little room for toxicity reduction because of the need to balance the estimated toxicity to organs at risk (OARs), derived from dose-volume histogram data for organs including the lung, heart, spinal cord, and liver, with the planning target volume (PTV) dose. Intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) is an advanced form of conformal RT that utilizes computer-controlled linear accelerators to deliver precise radiation doses to the PTV. The dosimetric advantages of IMRT enable better sparing of normal tissues and OARs than is possible with 3D-CRT. A major breakthrough in the treatment of esophageal cancer (EC), whether early or locally advanced, is the use of proton beam therapy (PBT). Protons deposit their highest dose of radiation at the tumor, while leaving none behind; the resulting effective dose reduction to healthy tissues and OARs considerably reduces acute and delayed RT-related toxicity. In recent studies, PBT has been found to alleviate severe lymphopenia resulting from combined chemo-radiation, opening up the possibility of reducing immune suppression, which might be associated with a poor prognosis in cases of locally advanced EC.

Efficacy of Endoscopic Evaluation of Acute Radiation Esophagitis during Chemoradiotherapy with Proton Beam Therapy Boost for Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

To evaluate the utility of endoscopy for assessing radiation esophagitis during chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with proton beam therapy (PBT) boost for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Between December 2012 and December 2016, 38 patients with esophageal cancer were treated with CRT with PBT boost. To evaluate radiation esophagitis, endoscopy was performed after administration of CRT with standard PBT boost (total dose 50-60 Gy relative biological effectiveness [RBE]). Radiation esophagitis was evaluated and classified into 5 newly developed endoscopic grades (Fukui Acute Radiation Esophagitis [FARE] grade). The additional PBT boost was then adjusted and delivered (2-20 Gy [RBE]) to a maximum total dose of 74.4 Gy (RBE) based on the degree of radiation esophagitis, probability of residual tumor, and patient's general condition. To evaluate the utility of endoscopic examination, the incidences of adverse events graded according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, version 4.0) were determined at the time of endoscopic examination after CRT with standard PBT boost (50-60 Gy [RBE]) and at the completion of treatment (60-74.4 Gy [RBE]), as well as during the 90 days from the beginning of treatment.

RESULTS

There was a significant correlation between FARE grade and CTCAE esophagitis grade (ρ = 0.48; p = 0.03). Moreover, endoscopy detected severe esophagitis in an asymptomatic patient. Radiation dose escalation was achieved without severe acute adverse events. There was no significant difference between the incidence of acute toxicity at the time of the CRT with standard PBT boost (50-60 Gy [RBE]) and the higher dose at the completion of treatment (60-74.4 Gy [RBE]), which suggests this dose escalation strategy is safe.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic evaluation of radiation esophagitis using FARE grades was safely performed and useful for adjusting added radiation to ensure the safety of escalations in CRT with PBT boost for esophageal cancer.

Modification of preoperative radiochemotherapy for esophageal cancer (CROSS protocol) is safe and efficient with no impact on surgical morbidity

Purpose

Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCTH) is proven to be highly effective in the treatment of esophageal cancer (EC). We investigated oncological outcome and morbidity in patients treated with a modified CROSS protocol followed by esophagectomy at our institution.

Methods

Patients with EC receiving neoadjuvant RCTH with paclitaxel and carboplatin and concurrent radiotherapy (46 Gy) followed by esophagectomy were included in this retrospective analysis. Histopathological response, overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free interval (RFI) as well as perioperative morbidity were investigated.

Results

Thirty-six patients (86.1% male, mean age 61.3 years, standard deviation 11.52) received neoadjuvant RCTH before surgery. Sixteen patients (44.4%) were treated for squamous cell cancer, whereas 20 patients (55.6%) had adenocarcinoma. The majority (75%) underwent abdominothoracic esophageal resection. Major complications occurred in 7 patients (19.5%) including anastomotic leakage in 4 patients (11.1%). A R0 resection was achieved in 97.2%. A complete pathological remission was seen in 13 patients (36.1%). Major response, classified as Mandard tumor regression grade 1 and 2, was found in 26 patients (72.2%). Median OS and RFI were not reached.

Conclusions

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy with 46 Gy and concomitant chemotherapy with paclitaxel and carboplatin for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is safe and effective. The results of this modified radiotherapy protocol are encouraging and should be considered in future patient treatment and study designs.

Evaluation of plan quality and robustness of IMPT and helical IMRT for cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Both plan quality and robustness were investigated through comparing some dosimetric metrics between intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and helical tomotherapy based intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for cervical cancer.

METHODS

Both a spot-scanning robust (SRO) IMPT plan and a helical tomotherapy robust (TRO) IMRT plan were generated for each of 18 patients. In order to evaluate the quality of nominal plans without dose perturbations, planning scores (PS) on clinical target volume (CTV) and five organs at risk (OARs) based on clinical experience, and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) of rectum and sigmoid were calculated based on Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model. Dose volume histogram bands width (DVHBW) were calculated in 28 perturbed scenarios to evaluate plan robustness.

RESULTS

Compared with TRO, the average scores of SRO nominal plans were higher in target metrics [V46.8Gy, V50Gy, Conformity and Homogeneity](16.5 vs. 15.1), and in OARs metrics (60.9 vs. 53.3), including bladder [V35,V45, Dmean,D2cc], rectum [V40,V45,D2cc,Dmax], bowel [V35,V40,V45, Dmax], sigmoid [V40,Dmax] and femoral heads [V30,Dmax]. Meanwhile, NTCP calculation showed that the toxicities of rectum and sigmoid in SRO were lower than those in TRO (rectum: 2.8% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.05; sigmoid: 5.2% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.05). DVHBW in target coverage for the SRO plan was smaller than that for the TRO plan (0.6% vs. 2.1%), which means that the SRO plan generated a more robust plan in target.

CONCLUSION

Better CTV coverage and OAR Sparing were obtained in SRO nominal plan. Based on NTCP calculation, SRO was expected to allow a small reduction in rectal toxicity. Furthermore, SRO generated a more robust plan in CTV target coverage.

The emerging role of proton therapy for esophagus cancer

Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plays an essential role in the treatment of esophageal cancer as either curative or neoadjuvant therapy. When delivered with conventional photon-based techniques, multiple adjacent organs at risk including the heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, stomach, and bowel, receive considerable radiation dose which may contribute to acute and late adverse events (AEs). Proton beam therapy (PBT) offers a reduction in radiation exposure to these organs and potentially an improvement in the therapeutic ratio. Herein we discuss the emerging role of PBT for esophageal cancer, including rationale, treatment planning, early dosimetric and clinical comparisons of PBT with photon-based techniques, ongoing prospective trials, and potential areas of opportunity for the incorporation of PBT with the goal of improving outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer.

Prediction of Severe Lymphopenia During Chemoradiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: Development and Validation of a Pretreatment Nomogram

INTRODUCTION

In patients with esophageal cancer, occurrence of severe radiation-induced lymphopenia during chemoradiation therapy has been associated with worse progression-free and overall survival. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a pretreatment clinical nomogram for the prediction of grade 4 lymphopenia.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A development set of consecutive patients who underwent chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer and an independent validation set of patients from another institution were identified. Grade 4 lymphopenia was defined as an absolute lymphocyte count nadir during chemoradiation therapy of <0.2 × 10³/μL. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to create a prediction model for grade 4 lymphopenia in the development set, which was internally validated using bootstrapping and externally validated by applying the model to the validation set. The model was presented as a nomogram yielding 4 risk groups.

RESULTS

Among 860 included patients, 322 (37%) experienced grade 4 lymphopenia. Higher age, larger planning target volume in interaction with lower body mass index, photon- rather than proton-based therapy, and lower baseline absolute lymphocyte count were predictive in the final model (corrected c-statistic, 0.76). External validation in 144 patients, among whom 58 (40%) had grade 4 lymphopenia, yielded a c-statistic of 0.71. Four nomogram-based risk groups yielded predicted risk rates of 10%, 24%, 43%, and 70%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A pretreatment clinical nomogram was developed and validated for the prediction of grade 4 radiation-induced lymphopenia during chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer. The nomogram can risk stratify individual patients suitable for lymphopenia-mitigating strategies or potential future therapeutic approaches to ultimately improve survival.

Clinical Results of Proton Beam Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: Multicenter Retrospective Study in Japan

There are few reports about the clinical results of proton beam therapy for esophageal cancer in a large population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of proton beam therapy for esophageal cancer in a large population using a multicentered database. Between January 2009 and December 2013, patients newly diagnosed with esophageal cancer and who had received proton beam therapy were retrospectively recruited from a database of four proton beam therapy centers in Japan. Two hundred and two patients (including 90 inoperable patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and 100 patients (49.5%) had stage III/IV cancer (Union for International Cancer Control 8th). The 3-year and 5-year overall survival rate was 66.7% and 56.3%, respectively. The five-year local control rate was 64.4%. There were two patients with grade three pericardial effusion (1%) and a patient with grade three pneumonia (0.5%). No grade 4 or higher cardiopulmonary toxicities were observed (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0). This study suggests that proton beam therapy for esophageal cancer was not inferior in efficacy and had lower rates of toxicities in comparison to photon radiotherapy. Therefore, proton beam therapy can serve as an alternate treatment for patients with esophageal cancer.

Effect of 5-fluorouracil on cellular response to proton beam in esophageal cancer cell lines according to the position of spread-out Bragg peak

INTRODUCTION

To investigate enhancement by 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) of the sensitivity of cancer cells to proton beam irradiation and clarify the differences in the responses of the 5-FU-treated cells to proton beam irradiation according to the position of the cells on the spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP).

METHODS

OE21 human esophageal squamous cells were irradiated with a 235-MeV proton beam at four different positions on the SOBP. The effects of the irradiation plus 5-FU treatment on the cell survival were assessed by clonogenic assays and determination of the sensitizer enhancement ratio (SER). In addition, DNA double-strand breaks were estimated by measuring phospho-histone H2AX (γH2AX) foci formation in the cells at 0.5 and 24 h after irradiation.

RESULTS

The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of proton beam irradiation against vehicle-control cells tended to increase with an increase in the depth of the cells on the SOBP. On the other hand, the degree of enhancement of the cellular sensitivity to proton beam irradiation by 5-FU was similar across all the positions on the SOBP. Furthermore, a marked increase in the number of residual γH2AX foci at 24 h post-irradiation was observed in the cells at the distal end of the SOBP.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicated that the degree of enhancement by 5-FU of the sensitivity of OE21 cells to 235-MeV proton beam irradiation did not differ significantly depending on the position of the cells on the SOBP. Furthermore, the degree of increase in the number of γH2AX foci at 24 h after proton beam irradiation with or without 5-FU exposure did not differ significantly according to the position on the SOBP. The effect of 5-FU in enhancing the effect of proton beam irradiation on cancer cells may be constant for all positions on the SOBP.

Multimodality Therapy Including Proton Beam Therapy for AFP Producing Esophageal Cancer with Multiple Liver Metastases

A 50-year-old man who presented with a fever and epigastralgia was diagnosed to have esophageal carcinoma which was identified as poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma producing alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) with Barrett's esophagus. Computed tomography revealed multiple liver metastases and lymph node metastases surrounding the stomach. We first performed chemotherapy for the systemic lesions and proton beam therapy for the local control of lesions without complete remission and we were able to successfully control the frequently recurring lesions by proton beam therapy, cryotherapy and chemotherapy. A complete response has been maintained for 16 months and the overall survival time is 4 years and 2 months. Proton beam therapy for primary esophageal cancer and metastatic lesions was thus found to be an effective therapeutic option for such cases.

The evolution of proton beam therapy: Current and future status

Proton beam therapy (PBT) has been increasingly used in a variety of cancers due to its excellent physical properties and superior dosimetric parameters. PBT may improve patient survival by improving the local tumor treatment rate while reducing injury to normal organs, which may result in fewer radiation-induced adverse effects. However, the significant cost of establishing and maintaining proton facilities cannot be overlooked. In addition, there has been significant controversy regarding routine application of this treatment in certain types of cancer. The challenges of PBT in the future mainly include the lack of basic clinical trials, unclear biological effects, immature imaging technology and miniaturization of imaging guidance. Overcoming these limitations may promote the rapid development of PBT. We herein provide an overview of the existing literature on the efficacy and toxicity of common oncological applications of proton beam therapy.

Comparative Outcomes After Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Using Proton Beam Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Retrospective, Single-Institutional Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes between proton beam therapy (PBT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC) treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From 2007 through 2014, 343 EC patients who received definitive CRT with either PBT (n=132) or IMRT (n=211) were retrospectively analyzed. Survival, recurrence, and treatment toxicity were compared between groups. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was performed to test the association between patient/treatment variables and survival.

RESULTS

Patient/treatment variables were overall well balanced, except for age and race. Compared with IMRT, PBT had significantly better overall survival (OS; P=.011), progression-free survival (PFS; P=.001), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS; P=.031), as well as marginally better locoregional failure-free survival (LRFFS; P=.075). No significant differences in rates of treatment-related toxicities were observed between groups. On multivariate analysis, IMRT had worse OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.454; P=.01), PFS (HR 1.562; P=.001), and LRFFS (HR 1.461; P=.041) than PBT. Subgroup analysis by clinical stage revealed considerably higher 5-year OS (34.6% vs 25.0%, P=.038) and PFS rates (33.5% vs 13.2%, P=.005) in the PBT group for patients with stage III disease. However, no significant intergroup differences in survival were identified for stage I/II patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with IMRT, PBT might be associated with improved OS, PFS, and LRFFS, especially in EC patients with locally advanced disease. These results need confirmation by prospective studies.

Recent advances in intensity modulated radiotherapy and proton therapy for esophageal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Radiotherapy is an important component of the standard of care for esophageal cancer. In the past decades, significant improvements in the planning and delivery of radiation techniques have led to better dose conformity to the target volume and improved normal tissue sparing. Areas covered: This review focuses on the advances in radiotherapy techniques and summarizes the availably dosimetric and clinical outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy, proton therapy, and four-dimensional radiotherapy for esophageal cancer, and discusses the challenges and future development of proton therapy. Expert commentary: Although three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy is the standard radiotherapy technique in esophageal cancer, the retrospectively comparative studies strongly suggest that the dosimetric advantage of IMRT over three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy can translate into improved clinical outcomes, despite the lack of prospective randomized evidence. As a novel form of conventional IMRT technique, volumetric modulated arc therapy can produce equivalent or superior dosimetric quality with significantly higher treatment efficiency in esophageal cancer. Compared with photon therapy, proton therapy has the potential to achieve further clinical improvement due to their physical properties; however, prospective clinical data, long-term results, and cost-effectiveness are needed.

Particle Radiation Therapy for Gastrointestinal Cancers

Particle irradiation of cancerous disease has gained great traction in recent years. The ability for particle therapy centers to deliver radiation with a highly conformal dose distribution while maintaining minimal exit or excess dose delivered to normal tissue, coupled with various biological advantages particularly found with heavy-ion beams, enables treatment of diseases inapproachable with conventional radiotherapy. Here, we present a review of the current status of particle therapy with regard to cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, including esophagus, liver, pancreas, and recurrent rectal cancer.

Impact of PET/CT on radiation treatment in patients with esophageal cancer: A systematic review

PURPOSE

With the advances in radiotracers, positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is recognized as a useful adjunct to anatomic imaging with CT, MRI and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). The objective of this review was to comprehensively analyze the roles of PET/CT for the radiotherapy of esophageal cancer.

METHODS

In this review, we focused on issues concerning the application of PET/CT in TNM staging, target volume delineation and response to therapy, both for the primary tumor and regional lymph nodes. Furthermore, the following questions were addressed: how does PET/CT guide appropriate treatment protocols, how does it allow accurate tumor delineation and how does it guide prognosis and future treatment decisions.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

For the staging of esophageal cancer, PET/CT played a crucial role in exploring distant malignant lymph nodes and metastasis with high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. PET/CT using different radiotracer provided a serial of thresholding methods based on standardized uptake value (SUV) to assist in auto-contouring the gross tumor volume (GTV). The change in SUV may offer a potential paradigm of personalized treatment to definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In total, PET/CT has sought to further optimize radiotherapy treatment planning for patients with esophageal cancer.

Proton beam therapy in Japan: current and future status

The number of patients treated by proton beam therapy in Japan since 2000 has increased; in 2016, 11 proton facilities were available to treat patients. Notably, proton beam therapy is very useful for pediatric cancer; since the pediatric radiation dose to normal tissues should be reduced as much as possible because of the effect of radiation on growth, intellectual development, endocrine organ function and secondary cancer development. Hepatocellular carcinoma is common in Asia, and most of the studies of proton beam therapy for liver cancer have been reported by Japanese investigators. Proton beam therapy is also a standard treatment for nasal and paranasal lesions and lesions at the base of the skull, because the radiation dose to critical organs such as the eyes, optic nerves and central nervous system can be reduced with proton beam therapy. For prostate cancer, comparative studies that address adverse effects, safety, patient quality of life and socioeconomic issues should be performed to determine the appropriate use of proton beam therapy for prostate cancer. Regarding new proton beam therapy applications, experience with proton beam therapy combined with chemotherapy is limited, although favorable outcomes have been recently reported for locally advanced lung cancer, esophageal cancer and pancreatic cancer. Therefore, 'chemoproton' therapy appears to be a very attractive field for further clinical investigations. In conclusion, there are cost issues and considerations regarding national insurance for the use of proton beam therapy in Japan. Further studies and discussions are needed to address the use of proton beam therapy for several types of cancers, and for maintaining the quality of life of patients while retaining a high cure rate.

Radiation Therapy and Cardiac Death in Long-Term Survivors of Esophageal Cancer: An Analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result Database

Objective

Radiation therapy (RT) for esophageal cancer often results in unintended radiation doses delivered to the heart owing to anatomic proximity. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we examined late cardiac death in survivors of esophageal cancer that had or had not received RT.

Methods

5,630 patients were identified that were diagnosed with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma (AC) from 1973–2012, who were followed for at least 5 years after therapy. Examined risk factors for cardiac death included age (≤55/56-65/66-75/>75), gender, race (white/non-white), stage (local/regional/distant), histology (SCC/AC), esophageal location (<18cm/18-24cm/25-32cm/33-40cm from incisors), diagnosis year (1973-1992/1993-2002/2003-2012), and receipt of surgery and/or RT. Time to cardiac death was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox model was used to evaluate risk factors for cardiac death in propensity score matched data.

Results

Patients who received RT were younger, diagnosed more recently, had more advanced disease, SCC histology, and no surgery. The RT group had higher risk of cardiac death than the no-RT group (log-rank p<0.0001). The median time to cardiac death in the RT group was 289 months (95% CI, 255–367) and was not reached in the no-RT group. The probability of cardiac death increased with age and decreased with diagnosis year, and this trend was more pronounced in the RT group. Multivariate analysis found RT to be associated with higher probability of cardiac death (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.03–1.47, HR 1.961, 95% CI 1.466–2.624). Lower esophageal subsite (33–40 cm) was also associated with a higher risk of cardiac death. Other variables were not associated with cardiac death.

Conclusions

Recognizing the limitations of a SEER analysis including lack of comorbidity accountability, these data should prompt more definitive study as to whether a possible associative effect of RT on cardiac death could potentially be a causative effect.

Improving Outcomes for Esophageal Cancer using Proton Beam Therapy

Radiation therapy (RT) plays an essential role in the management of esophageal cancer. Because the esophagus is a centrally located thoracic structure there is a need to balance the delivery of appropriately high dose to the target while minimizing dose to nearby critical structures. Radiation dose received by these critical structures, especially the heart and lungs, may lead to clinically significant toxicities, including pneumonitis, pericarditis, and myocardial infarction. Although technological advancements in photon RT delivery like intensity modulated RT have decreased the risk of such toxicities, a growing body of evidence indicates that further risk reductions are achieved with proton beam therapy (PBT). Herein we review the published dosimetric and clinical PBT literature for esophageal cancer, including motion management considerations, the potential for reirradiation, radiation dose escalation, and ongoing esophageal PBT clinical trials. We also consider the potential cost-effectiveness of PBT relative to photon RT.

Proton beams in cancer treatments: Clinical outcomes and dosimetric comparisons with photon therapy

PURPOSE

To review current evidence of the role of proton therapy (PT) in other tumors than skull base, sinusal/parasinusal, spinal and pediatric tumors; to determine medico-economic aspects raised by PT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review on Medline was performed with the following keywords: proton therapy, proton beam, protontherapy, cancer; publications with comparison between PT and photon-therapy were also selected.

RESULTS

In silico studies have shown superiority (better dose delivery to the target and/or to organs at risk) of PT toward photon-therapy in most of thoracic and abdominal malignant tumors. Potential benefits of PT could be: reduction of toxicities (including radiation-induced cancer), increase of tumor control through a dose-escalation approach, hypofractionation. Cost of treatment is always cited as an issue which actually can be managed by a precise patient selection making PT a cost-effective procedure. Comparison plan with photon therapy may be useful to determine the dosimetric and clinical advantages of PT (Normal Tissue Complications Probability).

CONCLUSION

PT may be associated with a great advantage compared to the best photon-therapies in various types of cancers. Accumulation of clinical data is on-going and will challenge the in silico data analysis. Some indications are associated with strong superiority of PT and may be discussed as a new standard within prospective observational studies.