Proton Therapy for Vaginal Reirradiation

Proton Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review of Treatment-Related Side Effects and Toxicities

Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide. Around half of all cancer patients undergo some type of radiation therapy throughout the course of their treatment. Photon radiation remains (RT) the most widely utilized modality of radiotherapy despite recent advancements in proton radiation therapy (PBT). PBT makes use of the particle's biological property known as the Bragg peak to better spare healthy tissue from radiation damage, with data to support that this treatment modality is less toxic than photon RT. Hence, proton radiation dosimetry looks better compared to photon dosimetry; however, due to proton-specific uncertainties, unexpected acute, subacute, and long-term toxicities can be encountered. Reported neurotoxicity resulting from proton radiation treatments include radiation necrosis, moyamoya syndrome, neurosensory toxicities, brain edema, neuromuscular toxicities, and neurocognitive toxicities. Pulmonary toxicities include pneumonitis and fibrosis, pleural effusions, and bronchial toxicities. Pericarditis, pericardial effusions, and atrial fibrillations are among the cardiac toxicities related to proton therapy. Gastrointestinal and hematological toxicities are also found in the literature. Genitourinary toxicities include urinary and reproductive-related toxicities. Osteological, oral, endocrine, and skin toxicities have also been reported. The side effects will be comparable to the ones following photon RT, nonetheless at an expected lower incidence. The toxicities collected mainly from case reports and clinical trials are described based on the organs affected and functions altered.

ACR-ARS Practice Parameter for the Performance of Proton Beam Therapy

Purpose

This practice parameter for the performance of proton beam radiation therapy was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Radium Society (ARS). This practice parameter was developed to serve as a tool in the appropriate application of proton therapy in the care of cancer patients or other patients with conditions in which radiation therapy is indicated. It addresses clinical implementation of proton radiation therapy, including personnel qualifications, quality assurance (QA) standards, indications, and suggested documentation.

Materials and Methods

This practice parameter for the performance of proton beam radiation therapy was developed according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website (https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters - Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS.

Results

The qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, such as the proton center Chief Medical Officer or Medical Director, Radiation Oncologist, Radiation Physicist, Dosimetrist and Therapist, are outlined, including the necessity for continuing medical education. Proton therapy standard clinical indications and methodologies of treatment management are outlined by disease site and treatment group (e.g. pediatrics) including documentation and the process of proton therapy workflow and equipment specifications. Additionally, this proton therapy practice parameter updates policies and procedures related to a quality assurance and performance improvement program (QAPI), patient education, infection control, and safety.

Conclusion

As proton therapy becomes more accessible to cancer patients, policies and procedures as outlined in this practice parameter will help ensure quality and safety programs are effectively implemented to optimize clinical care.

Reirradiation With Proton Therapy for Recurrent Malignancies of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction: Results of the Proton Collaborative Group Multi-Institutional Prospective Registry Trial

Purpose

Treatment options for recurrent esophageal cancer (EC) previously treated with radiation therapy (RT) are limited. Reirradiation (reRT) with proton beam therapy (PBT) can offer lower toxicities by limiting doses to surrounding tissues. In this study, we present the first multi-institutional series reporting on toxicities and outcomes after reRT for locoregionally recurrent EC with PBT.

Methods and Materials

Analysis of the prospective, multicenter, Proton Collaborative Group registry of patients with recurrent EC who had previously received photon-based RT and underwent PBT reRT was performed. Patient/tumor characteristics, treatment details, outcomes, and toxicities were collected. Local control (LC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Event time was determined from reRT start.

Results

Between 2012 and 2020, 31 patients received reRT via uniform scanning/passive scattering (61.3%) or pencil beam scanning (38.7%) PBT at 7 institutions. Median prior RT, PBT reRT, and cumulative doses were 50.4 Gy (range, 37.5-110.4), 48.6 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) (25.2-72.1), and 99.9 Gy (79.1-182.5), respectively. Of these patients, 12.9% had 2 prior RT courses, and 67.7% received PBT with concurrent chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 7.2 months (0.9-64.7). Post-PBT, there were 16.7% locoregional only, 11.1% distant only, and 16.7% locoregional and distant recurrences. Six-month LC, DMFS, and OS were 80.5%, 83.4%, and 69.1%, respectively. One-year LC, DMFS, and OS were 67.1%, 83.4%, and 27%, respectively. Acute grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 23% of patients, with 1 acute grade 5 toxicity secondary to esophageal hemorrhage, unclear if related to reRT or disease progression. No grade ≥3 late toxicities were reported.

Conclusions

In the largest report to date of PBT for reRT in patients with recurrent EC, we observed acceptable acute toxicities and encouraging rates of disease control. However, these findings are limited by the poor prognoses of these patients, who are at high risk of mortality. Further research is needed to better assess the long-term benefits and toxicities of PBT in this specific patient population.

Is a tailored strategy using proton beam radiotherapy for reirradiation advantageous for elderly women? A case report

BACKGROUND

The management of primary or recurrent vaginal tumours in an aging population is challenging for gynecologic and radiation oncologists. In patients unsuited for surgery and already irradiated on the pelvis, proton beam radiotherapy may be worthwhile due to its ballistic advantages.

CASE REPORT

We report the case of an 80-year-old woman with a squamous cell carcinoma of the vagina after a history of pelvic radiation and vaginal brachytherapy delivered for a previous endometrial adenocarcinoma. She received proton beam radiotherapy with a complete response after 12 months and mild toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

The complexity of reirradiation management in the frail and elderly population requires attention. Efforts should be focused on maintaining autonomy and quality of life in order to improve adherence and clinical compliance to the treatment. In the era of the tailored approach, hadrontherapy can play an important role to minimize toxicity, obtain good local control, and reduce the overall treatment time.

Reirradiation for Locoregional Recurrent Breast Cancer

Purpose

Reirradiation poses a distinct therapeutic challenge owing to risks associated with exceeding normal tissue tolerances and possibly more therapeutically resistant disease biology. We report our experience with reirradiation for locoregional recurrent or second primary breast cancer.

Methods and Materials

Between 1999 and 2019, all patients with breast cancer treated with repeat breast/chest wall radiation therapy (RT) at our institution were identified. Adverse events were assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. Fisher exact, Mann-Whitney rank-sum, and unpaired t tests were used for statistical analysis. Freedom from locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis as well as overall survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

Seventy-two patients underwent reirradiation. Median prior RT dose, reirradiation dose, and cumulative dose were 60 Gy (interquartile range [IQR], 50-60.4 Gy), 45 Gy (IQR, 40-50 Gy), and 103.54 Gy₂ (IQR, 95.04-109.62 Gy₂), respectively. Median time between RT courses was 73 months (IQR, 29-129 months). Thirty-four patients (47%) had gross residual disease at time of reirradiation. Course intent was described as curative in 44 patients (61%) and palliative in 28 (39%). Fifty-two patients (72%) were treated with photons ± electrons and 20 (28%) with protons. With a median follow-up of 22 months (IQR, 10-43 months), grade 3 adverse events were experienced by 13% of patients (10% acute skin toxicity and 3% late skin necrosis). Time between RT courses and reirradiation fields was significantly associated with the development of grade 3 toxicity at any point. Proton therapy conferred a dosimetric advantage without difference in toxicity. At 2 years, locoregional recurrence-free survival was 74.6% and overall survival was 65.5% among all patients, and 93.1% and 76.8%, respectively, among curative intent patients treated without gross disease. Distant metastasis-free survival was 59.0% among all curative intent patients.

Conclusions

Reirradiation for locoregional recurrent breast cancer is feasible with acceptable rates of toxicity. Disease control and survival are promising among curative intent reirradiation patients without gross disease.

Prioritization of Proton Patients in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations from The New York Proton Center

It has been well documented from the early days of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic that patients with a diagnosis of cancer are not only at higher risks of contracting a COVID-19 infection but also at higher risks of suffering severe, and possibly fatal, outcomes from the infection. Given that the United States has the greatest number of positive coronavirus cases, it is likely that many, if not all, radiation oncology clinics will be faced with the challenge of safely balancing a patient's risk of contracting COVID-19, while under active radiation treatment, against their risk of cancer progression if treatment is delayed. To address this challenge, the New York Proton Center established an internal algorithm that considers treatment-related, tumor-related, and patient-related characteristics. Despite having suffered staff shortages due to illness, this algorithm has allowed the center to maintain patient treatment volumes while keeping the rate of COVID-19 infection low.

Proton beam re-irradiation for gastrointestinal malignancies: a systematic review

Background

Radiotherapy (RT) is part of the standard of care management of most gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Even with advanced RT, systemic therapy, and surgical techniques, locoregional recurrences or second primary cancers can still occur within previously irradiated fields, which can present challenges in delivering effective and safe treatment. Options for reirradiation are often limited, but given the favorable dosimetric aspects of proton-beam RT, it may provide an effective and safe re-irradiation option for patients with recurrent or second primary GI cancers.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement protocol, assessing for reports of proton-beam reirradiation for recurrent or second primary GI cancers, primarily via PubMed. From the initial 373 articles identified, 7 articles were ultimately included in the analysis.

Results

The 7 included studies reported on proton-beam re-irradiation for the following disease sites: esophageal (n=2), pancreas (n=1), liver (n=2), rectal (n=1), and anal (n=1). Study sizes varied from as few as 1 to as many as 83 patients. Across studies, in patients who presented with tumor-related symptoms, palliation (stability/improvement) was achieved in 80-100% of the cases. Local control rates, with variable follow-up, ranged from 36-100%. All median overall survival values, when reported, were greater than 1 year. Across both liver studies, there were no cases of radiation-induced liver disease (RILD) from proton-beam re-irradiation. Across all studies, there were 2 acute (esophagopleural fistula in esophageal cancer, small bowel perforation in pancreatic cancer) and 1 late (esophageal ulcer in esophageal cancer) grade 5 toxicities, all favored to be due to progressive disease, rather than proton-beam re-irradiation. Two studies (1 esophageal, 1 rectal) generated comparison photon plans. One found that proton therapy reduced mean heart and lung doses, spinal cord dose, and lung V5Gy as compared to photon treatment, while resulting in higher lung V20Gy and V30Gy. The other found that protons decreased bowel V10Gy, V20Gy, and the dose to 200 and 150 cc of bowel, as compared to photons.

Conclusions

Based upon the published experiences, proton-beam re-irradiation for recurrent or second primary GI cancers appears effective for palliation, with good disease-control, limited toxicity, favorable dosimetry, and overall compares well with published non-proton-beam experiences. Given short follow-up, additional studies are warranted to determine if dosimetric advantages from proton therapy will translate into comparative toxicity benefits.

Establishment of a New Three-Dimensional Dose Evaluation Method Considering Variable Relative Biological Effectiveness and Dose Fractionation in Proton Therapy Combined with High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy

Purpose:

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of proton beam and dose fractionation has on dose distribution and to establish a new three-dimensional dose evaluation method for proton therapy combined with high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy.

Materials and Methods:

To evaluate the influence of variable RBE and dose fractionation on dose distribution in proton beam therapy, the depth-dose distribution of proton therapy was compared with clinical dose, RBE-weighted dose, and equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions using a linear-quadratic-linear model (EQD2_LQL). The clinical dose was calculated by multiplying the physical dose by RBE of 1.1. The RBE-weighted dose is a biological dose that takes into account RBE variation calculated by microdosimetric kinetic model implemented in Monte Carlo code. The EQD2_LQL is a biological dose that makes the RBE-weighted dose equivalent to 2 Gy using a linear-quadratic-linear (LQL) model. Finally, we evaluated the three-dimensional dose by taking into account RBE variation and LQL model for proton therapy combined with HDR brachytherapy.

Results:

The RBE-weighted dose increased at the distal of the spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP). With the difference in the dose fractionation taken into account, the EQD2_LQL at the distal of the SOBP increased more than the RBE-weighted dose. In proton therapy combined with HDR brachytherapy, a divergence of 103% or more was observed between the conventional dose estimation method and the dose estimation method we propose.

Conclusions:

Our dose evaluation method can evaluate the EQD2_LQL considering RBE changes in the dose distribution.

Proton beam therapy reirradiation for breast cancer: Multi-institutional prospective PCG registry analysis

To investigate adverse events (AEs, CTCAE v4.0) and clinical outcomes for proton beam therapy (PBT) reirradiation (reRT) for breast cancer. From 2011 to 2016, 50 patients received PBT reRT for breast cancer in the prospective Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) registry. Acute AEs occurred within 180 days from start of reRT. Late AEs began or persisted beyond 180 days. Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests were utilized. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate overall survival (OS) and local recurrence-free survival (LFRS). Median follow-up was 12.7 months (0-41.8). Median prior RT dose was 60 Gy (10-96.7). Median reRT dose was 55.1 Gy (45.1-76.3). Median cumulative dose was 110.6 Gy (70.6-156.8). Median interval between RT courses was 103.8 months (5.5-430.8). ReRT included regional nodes in 84% (66% internal mammary node [IMN]). Surgery included the following: 44% mastectomy, 22% wide local excision, 6% lumpectomy, 2% reduction mammoplasty, and 26% no surgery. Grade 3 AEs were experienced by 16% of patients (10% acute, 8% late) and were associated with body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m² (P = 0.04), bilateral recurrence (P = 0.02), and bilateral reRT (P = 0.004). All grade 3 AEs occurred in patients receiving IMN reRT (P = 0.08). At 1 year, LRFS was 93%, and OS was 97%. Patients with gross disease at time of PBT trended toward worse 1-year LRFS (100% without vs. 84% with, P = 0.06). PBT reRT is well tolerated with favorable local control. BMI > 30, bilateral disease, and IMN reRT were associated with grade 3 AEs. Toxicity was acceptable despite median cumulative dose > 110 Gy.