A 20-Year Analysis of Clinical Trials Involving Proton Beam Therapy

Managing axial bone sarcomas in childhood

Introduction: Axial osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma are rare, aggressive neoplasms with a worse prognosis than with tumors involving the extremities because they are more likely to be associated with larger tumor volumes, older age, primary metastases, and a poor histological response to chemotherapy. The 5-year OS rates are reportedly in the range of 18-41% for axial osteosarcoma, and 46-64% for Ewing sarcoma.Area covered: The treatment of axial bone tumors is the same as for extremity bone tumors, and includes chemotherapy, surgery and/or radiotherapy.Expert opinion: Local treatment of axial tumors is particularly difficult due to their proximity to neurological and vascular structures, which often makes extensive and en bloc resections impossible without causing significant morbidity. The incidence of local relapse is consequently high, and this is the main issue in the treatment of these tumors. Radiotherapy is an option in the case of surgical resections with close or positive margins, as well as for inoperable tumors. Delivering high doses of RT to the spinal cord can be dangerous. Given the complexity and rarity of these tumors, it is essential for this subset of patients to be treated at selected reference institutions with specific expertise and multidisciplinary skills.

Particle therapy tumour outcomes: An updated systematic review

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.

Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy

BACKGROUND

Proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers high-energy radiation to target tumours while sparing surrounding normal tissues. The dosimetric advantages of PBT over traditional photon radiotherapy may be clear but the translation of this benefit into clinically meaningful reductions in toxicities and improved quality-of-life (QoL) needs to be determined. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for generating the highest-level evidence in medicine. The objectives of this systematic review were to provide an overview of published clinical studies evaluating the benefits of PBT, and to examine the methodology used in clinical trials with respect to study design and outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for published clinical studies where PBT was a cancer treatment intervention. All randomised and non-randomised studies, prospective or retrospective, were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

In total, 219 studies were included. Prospective studies comprised 89/219 (41%), and of these, the number of randomised phase II and III trials were 5/89 (6%) and 3/89 (3%) respectively. Of all the phase II and III trials, 18/24 (75%) were conducted at a single PBT centre. Over one-third of authors recommended an increase in length of follow up. Research design and/or findings were poorly reported in 74/89 (83%) of prospective studies. Patient reported outcomes were assessed in only 19/89 (21%) of prospective studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective randomised evidence for PBT is limited. The set-up of national PBT services in several countries provides an opportunity to guide the optimal design of prospective studies, including RCTs, to evaluate the benefits of PBT across various disease sites. Collaboration between PBT centres, both nationally and internationally, would increase potential for the generation of practice changing evidence. There is a need to facilitate and guide the collection and analysis of meaningful outcome data, including late toxicities and patient reported QoL.