Defining the role of proton therapy in the optimal management of paediatric patients in Australia and New Zealand

Is proton beam therapy always better than photon irradiation? Lessons from two cases

Proton beam therapy (PBT) is increasingly used to treat cancers, especially in the paediatric and adolescent and young adult (AYA) population. As PBT becomes more accessible, determining when PBT should be used instead of photon irradiation can be difficult. There is a need to balance patient, tumour and treatment factors when making this decision. Comparing the dosimetry between these two modalities plays an important role in this process. PBT can reduce low to intermediate doses to organs at risk (OAR), but photon irradiation has its dosimetric advantages. We present two cases with brain tumours, one paediatric and one AYA, in which treatment plan comparison between photons and protons showed dosimetric advantages of photon irradiation. The first case was an 18-month-old child diagnosed with posterior fossa ependymoma requiring adjuvant radiotherapy. Photon irradiation using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) had lower doses to the hippocampi but higher doses to the pituitary gland. The second case was a 21-year-old with an optic pathway glioma. There was better sparing of the critical optic structures and pituitary gland using fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy over PBT. The dosimetric advantages of photon irradiation over PBT have been demonstrated in these cases. This highlights the role of proton-to-photon comparative treatment planning to better understand which patients might benefit from photon irradiation versus PBT.

A scoping review of patient selection methods for proton therapy

The aim was to explore various national and international clinical decision-making tools and dose comparison methods used for selecting cancer patients for proton versus X-ray radiation therapy. To address this aim, a literature search using defined scoping review methods was performed in Medline and Embase databases as well as grey literature. Articles published between 1 January 2015 and 4 August 2020 and those that clearly stated methods of proton versus X-ray therapy patient selection and those published in English were eligible for inclusion. In total, 321 studies were identified of which 49 articles met the study's inclusion criteria representing 13 countries. Six different clinical decision-making tools and 14 dose comparison methods were identified, demonstrating variability within countries and internationally. Proton therapy was indicated for all paediatric patients except those with lymphoma and re-irradiation where individualised model-based selection was required. The most commonly reported patient selection tools included the Normal Tissue Complication Probability model, followed by cost-effectiveness modelling and dosimetry comparison. Model-based selection methods were most commonly applied for head and neck clinical indications in adult cohorts (48% of studies). While no 'Gold Standard' currently exists for proton therapy patient selection with variations evidenced globally, some of the patient selection methods identified in this review can be used to inform future practice in Australia. As literature was not identified from all countries where proton therapy centres are available, further research is needed to evaluate patient selection methods in these jurisdictions for a comprehensive overview.

Scoping the literature on patient travel abroad for cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment

The incidence of cancer is on the rise globally. Under particular circumstances, patients are willing to travel abroad for healthcare treatments. We know relatively little however about patients travelling overseas for cancer-related screening, diagnosis and treatment. Where do patients go, for what treatments, what are their motivations, decision-making processes and treatment experiences? What do we know about patient safety and risk, and outcomes? More broadly, what are the ethical and legal implications? This review presents the first published assessment of what we term 'transnational oncology treatment', defined as patients travelling overseas or across borders for cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment. The review undertakes detailed search and retrieval of the literature, using an accepted scoping review method. We present a narrative review of existing knowledge and themes, identifying coverage and gaps. There is a five-fold agenda for future investigation: trajectories and itineraries; in depth focus on treatment decisions, experiences and outcomes; locating patient travel within wider health system analysis; exploration of professional perspectives and coordination; and situating travel within the context of health trade. Such an agenda is multidisciplinary and wide-ranging, encompassing epidemiology, health economics, health policy ethics, health politics, health management, and health policy.

Clinical outcomes following proton therapy for children with central nervous system tumors referred overseas

BACKGROUND

International, multidisciplinary care of children with central nervous system (CNS) tumors presents unique challenges. The aim of this study is to report patient outcomes of U.K. children referred for proton therapy to a North American facility.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2016, 166 U.K. children with approved CNS tumors were treated with proton therapy at a single academic medical center in the United States. Median age was 7 years (range, 1-19). Median follow-up was 2.6 years.

RESULTS

The 3-year actuarial overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) rates were 96% and 91%, respectively, for the overall group, 92% and 85% for the ependymoma subgroup (n = 57), 95% and 88% for the low-grade glioma subgroup (n = 54), and 100% and 100%, respectively, for the craniopharyngioma subgroup (n = 45). Cyst expansion was observed in 13 patients, including one case resulting in visual impairment. Serious side effects included new-onset seizures in three patients (1.8%), symptomatic vasculopathy in three patients (1.8%), and symptomatic brainstem necrosis in one patient (0.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of British children referred overseas for proton therapy, disease control does not appear compromised, toxicity is acceptable, and improvement in long-term function is anticipated in survivors owing to the reduced brain exposure afforded by proton therapy.