Proton therapy with concomitant capecitabine for pancreatic and ampullary cancers is associated with a low incidence of gastrointestinal toxicity

Phase 1 Study of Hypofractionated Proton Beam Radiation Therapy in Adjuvant Pancreatic Cancer (PROTON-PANC)

PURPOSE

Despite improvement in systemic therapy, patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) frequently experience local recurrence. We sought to determine the safety of hypofractionated proton beam radiation therapy (PBT) during adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Nine patients were enrolled in a single-institution phase 1 trial (NCT03885284) between 2019 and 2022. Patients had PDAC of the pancreatic head and underwent R0 or R1 resection and adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was to determine the dosing schedule of adjuvant PBT (5 Gy × 5 fractions) using limited treatment volumes given between cycles 6 and 7 of mFFX. Patients received PBT on days 15 to 19 in a 28-day cycle before starting cycle 7 (dose level 1, DL1) or on days 8 to 12 in a 21-day cycle before starting cycle 7 (DL2).

RESULTS

The median patient age was 66 years (range, 52-78), and the follow-up time from mFFX initiation was 12.5 months (range, 6.2-37.4 months). No patients received preoperative therapy. Four had R1 resections and 5 had node-positive disease. Three patients were enrolled on DL1 and 6 patients on DL2. One dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred at DL2 (prolonged grade 3 neutropenia resulting in discontinuation of mFFX after cycle 7). No other DLTs were observed. Four patients completed 12 cycles of mFFX (range, 7-12; median, 11). No patients have had local recurrence. Five of 9 patients had recurrence: 3 in the liver, 1 in the peritoneum, and 1 in the bone. Six patients are still alive, 4 of whom are recurrence-free. The median time to recurrence was 12 months (95% CI, 4 to not reached [NR]), and median overall survival was NR (95% CI, 6 to NR; 2-year survival rate, 57%).

CONCLUSIONS

PBT integrated within adjuvant mFFX was well tolerated, and no local recurrence was observed. These findings warrant further exploration in a phase 2 trial.

Treatment of primary or recurrent non-resectable pancreatic cancer with proton beam irradiation combined with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer accounts for around 4.6% of cancers deaths worldwide per year. Despite many advances in treatment regimes, the prognosis is still poor. Only 20% of tumors are primarily resectable. Recurrences-both with distant metastasis as well as locoregional-are frequent. For patients with primary nonresectable localized disease or localized recurrences, we offered chemoradiation to achieve local control over a long period of time. We here report our results on combined chemoradiation of pancreatic tumors and local recurrences using proton beam therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We report on 25 patients with localized nonresectable pancreatic cancer (15 patients) or local recurrent disease (10 patients). All patients were treated with combined proton radiochemotherapy. Overall survival, progression-free survival, local control, and treatment-related toxicity were analyzed using statistically methods.

RESULTS

Median RT dose was 54.0 Gy (RBE) for proton irradiation. The toxicity of treatment was acceptable. Four CTCAE grade III and IV adverse events (bone marrow disfunction, gastrointestinal [GI] disorders, stent dislocation, myocardial infarction) were recorded during or directly after the end of radiotherapy; two of them were related to combined chemoradiation (bone marrow disfunction, GI disorders). Six weeks after radiotherapy, one additional grade IV toxicity was reported (ileus, caused by peritoneal carcinomatosis, not treatment related). The median progression-free survival was 5.9 months and median overall survival was 11.0 months. The pretherapy CA19‑9 level was a statistically significant prognostic factor for enhanced overall survival. Local control at 6 months and 12 months were determined to be 86% and 80%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Combined proton chemoradiation leads to high local control rates. Unfortunately, PFS and OS are driven by distant metastasis and were not improved compared to historical data and reports. With this in mind, enhanced chemotherapeutical regimes, in combination with local irradiation, should be evaluated.

Proton Therapy for Unresectable and Medically Inoperable Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Results From a Multi-Institutional Prospective Registry

Purpose

Compared with photon-based techniques, proton beam radiation therapy (PBT) may improve the therapeutic ratio of radiation therapy (RT) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), but available data have been limited to single-institutional experiences. This study examined the toxicity, survival, and disease control rates among patients enrolled in a multi-institutional prospective registry study and treated with PBT for LAPC.

Methods and Materials

Between March 2013 and November 2019, 19 patients with inoperable disease across 7 institutions underwent PBT with definitive intent for LAPC. Patients received a median radiation dose/fractionation of 54 Gy/30 fractions (range, 50.4-60.0 Gy/19-33 fractions). Most received prior (68.4%) or concurrent (78.9%) chemotherapy. Patients were assessed prospectively for toxicities using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to analyze overall survival, locoregional recurrence-free survival, time to locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis-free survival, and time to new progression or metastasis for the adenocarcinoma cohort (17 patients).

Results

No patients experienced grade ≥3 acute or chronic treatment-related adverse events. Grade 1 and 2 adverse events occurred in 78.7% and 21.3% of patients, respectively. Median overall survival, locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and time to new progression or metastasis were 14.6, 11.0, 11.0, and 13.9 months, respectively. Freedom from locoregional recurrence at 2 years was 81.7%. All patients completed treatment with one requiring a RT break for stent placement.

Conclusions

Proton beam RT for LAPC offered excellent tolerability while still maintaining disease control and survival rates comparable with dose-escalated photon-based RT. These findings are consistent with the known physical and dosimetric advantages offered by proton therapy, but the conclusions are limited owing to the patient sample size. Further clinical studies incorporating dose-escalated PBT are warranted to evaluate whether these dosimetric advantages translate into clinically meaningful benefits.

Normo- or Hypo-Fractionated Photon or Proton Radiotherapy in the Management of Locally Advanced Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review

LAPC is associated with a poor prognosis and requires a multimodal treatment approach. However, the role of radiation therapy in LAPC treatment remains controversial. This systematic review aimed to explore the role of proton and photon therapy, with varying radiation techniques and fractionation, in treatment outcomes and their respective toxicity profiles.

METHODS

Clinical studies published from 2012 to 2022 were systematically reviewed using PubMed, MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Cochrane databases. Different radiotherapy-related data were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 31 studies matched the inclusion criteria. Acute toxicity was less remarkable in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT), while in proton beam therapy (PBT) grade 3 or higher acute toxicity was observed more commonly with doses of 67.5 Gy (RBE) or higher. Late toxicity was not reported in most studies; therefore, comparison between groups was not possible. The range of median overall survival (OS) for the CFRT and SBRT groups was 9.3-22.9 months and 8.5-20 months, respectively. For the PBT group, the range of median OS was 18.4-22.3 months.

CONCLUSION

CFRT and SBRT showed comparable survival outcomes with a more favorable acute toxicity profile for SBRT. PBT is a promising new treatment modality; however, additional clinical studies are needed to support its efficacy and safety.

Combined Systemic Drug Treatment with Proton Therapy: Investigations on Patient-Derived Organoids

To optimize neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the value of new irradiation modalities such as proton therapy needs to be investigated in relevant preclinical models. We studied individual treatment responses to RCT using patient-derived PDAC organoids (PDO). Four PDO lines were treated with gemcitabine, 5-fluorouracile (5FU), photon and proton irradiation and combined RCT. Therapy response was subsequently measured via viability assays. In addition, treatment-naive PDOs were characterized via whole exome sequencing and tumorigenicity was investigated in NMRI Foxn1nu/nu mice. We found a mutational pattern containing common mutations associated with PDAC within the PDOs. Although we could unravel potential complications of the viability assay for PDOs in radiobiology, distinct synergistic effects of gemcitabine and 5FU with proton irradiation were observed in two PDO lines that may lead to further mechanistical studies. We could demonstrate that PDOs are a powerful tool for translational proton radiation research.

Proton Therapy in the Management of Pancreatic Cancer

Radiation therapy plays a central role in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. While generally shown to be feasible, proton irradiation, particularly when an ablative dose is planned, remains a challenge, especially due to tumor motion and the proximity to organs at risk, like the stomach, duodenum, and bowel. Clinically, standard doses of proton radiation treatment have not been shown to be statistically different from photon radiation treatment in terms of oncologic outcomes and toxicity rates as per non-randomized comparative studies. Fractionation schedules and concurrent chemotherapy combinations are yet to be optimized for proton therapy and are the subject of ongoing trials.

Normal Tissue Injury Induced by Photon and Proton Therapies: Gaps and Opportunities

Despite technological advances in radiation therapy (RT) and cancer treatment, patients still experience adverse effects. Proton therapy (PT) has emerged as a valuable RT modality that can improve treatment outcomes. Normal tissue injury is an important determinant of the outcome; therefore, for this review, we analyzed 2 databases: (1) clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov and (2) the literature on PT in PubMed, which shows a steady increase in the number of publications. Most studies in PT registered with ClinicalTrials.gov with results available are nonrandomized early phase studies with a relatively small number of patients enrolled. From the larger database of nonrandomized trials, we listed adverse events in specific organs/sites among patients with cancer who are treated with photons and protons to identify critical issues. The present data demonstrate dosimetric advantages of PT with favorable toxicity profiles and form the basis for comparative randomized prospective trials. A comparative analysis of 3 recently completed randomized trials for normal tissue toxicities suggests that for early stage non-small cell lung cancer, no meaningful comparison could be made between stereotactic body RT and stereotactic body PT due to low accrual (NCT01511081). In addition, for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, a comparison of intensity modulated RTwith passive scattering PT (now largely replaced by spot-scanned intensity modulated PT), PT did not provide any benefit in normal tissue toxicity or locoregional failure over photon therapy. Finally, for locally advanced esophageal cancer, proton beam therapy provided a lower total toxicity burden but did not improve progression-free survival and quality of life (NCT01512589). The purpose of this review is to inform the limitations of current trials looking at protons and photons, considering that advances in technology, physics, and biology are a continuum, and to advocate for future trials geared toward accurate precision RT that need to be viewed as an iterative process in a defined path toward delivering optimal radiation treatment. A foundational understanding of the radiobiologic differences between protons and photons in tumor and normal tissue responses is fundamental to, and necessary for, determining the suitability of a given type of biologically optimized RT to a patient or cohort.

Who Will Benefit from Charged-Particle Therapy?

Charged-particle therapy (CPT) such as proton beam therapy (PBT) and carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) exhibit substantial physical and biological advantages compared to conventional photon radiotherapy. As it can reduce the amount of radiation irradiated in the normal organ, CPT has been mainly applied to pediatric cancer and radioresistent tumors in the eloquent area. Although there is a possibility of greater benefits, high set-up cost and dearth of high level of clinical evidence hinder wide applications of CPT. This review aims to present recent clinical results of PBT and CIRT in selected diseases focusing on possible indications of CPT. We also discussed how clinical studies are conducted to increase the number of patients who can benefit from CPT despite its high cost.

Radiosensitizing Pancreatic Cancer with PARP Inhibitor and Gemcitabine: An In Vivo and a Whole-Transcriptome Analysis after Proton or Photon Irradiation

Simple Summary

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is a devastating disease. Using modern technique of radiotherapy, such as proton therapy, may simultaneously enhance dose to the tumor and decrease dose to surrounding organ, thus limiting toxicity. Moreover, associating drugs to radiotherapy also increases its effectiveness on tumor. The aim of our study was to show the benefit of proton therapy compared to standard radiotherapy with photon, and the benefit of associating different drugs with those particles in vivo. Thus, our results displayed a higher effectiveness of associating proton therapy, gemcitabine and olaparib. Finally, we pointed out that treatment induced significant transcriptomic alterations.

Abstract

Over the past few years, studies have focused on the development of targeted radiosensitizers such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We performed an in vivo study and a whole-transcriptome analysis to determine whether PARP inhibition enhanced gemcitabine-based chemoradiosensitization of pancreatic cancer xenografts, combined with either proton or photon irradiation. NMRI mice bearing MIA PaCa-2 xenografts were treated with olaparib and/or gemcitabine and irradiated with 10 Gy photon or proton. First, a significant growth inhibition was obtained after 10 Gy proton irradiation compared to 10 Gy photon irradiation (p = 0.046). Moreover, the combination of olaparib, gemcitabine and proton therapy significantly sensitized tumor xenografts, compared to gemcitabine (p = 0.05), olaparib (p = 0.034) or proton therapy (p < 0.0001) alone or to the association of olaparib, gemcitabine and radiotherapy (p = 0.024). Simultaneously, whole RNA sequencing profiling showed differentially expressed genes implicated in categories such as DNA repair, type I interferon signaling and cell cycle. Moreover, a large amount of lncRNA was dysregulated after proton therapy, gemcitabine and olaparib. This is the first study showing that addition of olaparib to gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy improved significantly local control in vivo, especially after proton therapy. RNA sequencing profiling analysis presented dynamic alteration of transcriptome after chemoradiation and identified a classifier of gemcitabine response.

Dose-escalated simultaneously integrated boost photon or proton therapy in pancreatic cancer in an in-silico study: Gastrointestinal organs remain critical

•

Robustly optimized proton plans (rMFO-IMPT) with simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) were clinically applicable.

•

Gastrointestinal organs reached critical dose values in rMFO-IMPT, VMAT and Tomotherapy techniques.

•

rMFO-IMPT significantly reduced the low and intermediate dose to organs at risk.

•

No clinically significant differences on results depending on tumor location or surgical status were observed.

Purpose

To compare the dosimetric results of an in-silico study among intensity-modulated photon (IMRT) and robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton (IMPT) treatment techniques using a dose-escalated simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) approach in locally recurrent or advanced pancreatic cancer patients.

Material and methods

For each of 15 locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients, a volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a Tomotherapy (TOMO), and an IMPT treatment plan was optimized on free-breathing treatment planning computed tomography (CT) images. For the photon treatment plans, doses of 66 Gy and 51 Gy, both as SIB in 30 fractions, were prescribed to the gross tumor volume (GTV) and to the planning target volume (PTV), respectively. For the proton plans, a dose prescription of 66 Gy(RBE) to the GTV and of 51 Gy(RBE) to the clinical target volume (CTV) was planned. For each SIB-treatment plan, doses to the targets and OARs were evaluated and statistically compared.

Results

All treatment techniques reached the prescribed doses to the GTV and CTV or PTV. The stomach and the bowel, in particular the duodenum and the small bowel, were found to be frequently exposed to doses exceeding 50 Gy, irrespective of the treatment technique. For doses below 50 Gy, the IMPT technique was statistically significant superior to both IMRT techniques regarding decreasing dose to the OARs, e.g. volume of the bowel receiving 15 Gy (V_15Gy) was reduced for IMPT compared to VMAT (p = 0.003) and TOMO (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

With all photon and proton techniques investigated, the radiation dose to gastrointestinal OARs remained critical when treating patients with unresectable locally recurrent or advanced pancreatic cancer using a dose-escalated SIB approach.

Efficacy and feasibility of proton beam radiotherapy using the simultaneous integrated boost technique for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and feasibility of proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) using the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), 81 LAPC patients receiving PBT using SIB technique were analyzed. The prescribed doses to planning target volume (PTV)1 and PTV2 were 45 or 50 GyE and 30 GyE in 10 fractions, respectively. Of 81 patients, 18 patients received PBT without upfront and maintenance chemotherapy (group I), 44 received PBT followed by maintenance chemotherapy (group II), and 19 received PBT after upfront chemotherapy followed by maintenance chemotherapy (n = 16) (group III). The median follow-up time was 19.6 months (range 2.3-57.6 months), and the median overall survival (OS) times of all patients and of those in groups I, II, and III were 19.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.8-21.7 months), 15.3 months (95% CI 12.9-17.7 months), 18.3 months (95% CI 15.9-20.7 months), and 26.1 months (95% CI 17.8-34.3 months), respectively (p = 0.043). Acute and late grade ≥ 3 toxicities related to PBT were not observed. PBT with the SIB technique showed promising OS for LAPC patients with a safe toxicity profile, and intensive combinations of PBT and chemotherapy could improve OS in these patients.

Three-Year Results of a Prospective Statewide Insurance Coverage Pilot for Proton Therapy: Stakeholder Collaboration Improves Patient Access to Care

PURPOSE

Proton therapy is increasingly prescribed, given its potential to improve outcomes; however, prior authorization remains a barrier to access and is associated with frequent denials and treatment delays. We sought to determine whether appropriate access to proton therapy could ensure timely care without overuse or increased costs.

METHODS

Our large academic cancer center collaborated with a statewide self-funded employer (n = 186,000 enrollees) on an insurance coverage pilot, incorporating a value-based analysis and ensuring preauthorization for appropriate indications. Coverage was ensured for prospective trials and five evidence-supported anatomic sites. Enrollment initiated in 2016 and continued for 3 years. Primary end points were use, authorization time, and cost of care, with case-matched comparison of total charges at 1 month pretreatment through 6 months posttreatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were approved over 3 years, with only 22 actually receiving proton therapy, versus a predicted use by 120 patients (P < .01). Median follow-up was 20.1 months, and average authorization time decreased from 17 days to < 1 day (P < .01), significantly enhancing patient access. During this time, 25 patients who met pilot eligibility were instead treated with photons; and 17 patients with > 6 months of follow-up were case matched by treatment site to 17 patients receiving proton therapy, with no significant differences in sex, age, performance status, stage, histology, indication, prescribed fractions, or chemotherapy. Total medical costs (including radiation therapy [RT] and non-RT charges) for patients treated with PBT were lower than expected (a cost increase initially was expected), with no significant difference in total average charges (P = .82), in the context of overall ancillary care use.

CONCLUSION

This coverage pilot demonstrated that appropriate access to proton therapy does not necessitate overuse or significantly increase comprehensive medical costs. Objective evidence-based coverage polices ensure appropriate patient selection. Stakeholder collaboration can streamline patient access while reducing administrative burden.

Radiation as a Single-Modality Treatment in Localized Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) is managed with multimodality therapy. We aim to evaluate the outcome of single-modality radiation therapy for LAPC.

METHODS

Locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients were identified between 2004 and 2013 using the National Cancer Database excluding patients who received chemotherapy or surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 6590 patients were included. The mean age was 73.5 (range, 28-90) years, 83.2% were white, and 54.4% were female. Tumors of 4 cm or greater (>T3 stage) accounted for 52.7%. The median radiation dose was 39.6 Gy. Stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) delivered to 64 patients and external-beam/intensity modulated radiotherapy in 416 patients. Radiation therapy was associated with improved overall survival (OS) compared with no treatment in univariate and multivariable analyses. The medians OS for patients who received SBRT, external-beam/intensity modulated radiotherapy, or no radiation were 8.6, 6.7, and 3.4 months, respectively (P < 0.001). There is a significant difference in 12-month OS for the SBRT cohort (31.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 20.9%-43.5%) compared with patients who received no radiation (15.1%; 95% CI, 14.2%-16.0%), and on multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.65; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggests potential benefit for radiation therapy alone in comparison with no treatment in LAPC.

Radiobiological model-based approach to determine the potential of dose-escalated robust intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy in reducing gastrointestinal toxicity in the treatment of locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer of the head

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine the potential of escalated dose radiation (EDR) robust intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy (ro-IMPT) in reducing GI toxicity risk in locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer (LAUPC) of the head in term of normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) predictive model.

Methods

For 9 patients, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was compared with ro-IMPT. For all plans, the prescription dose was 59.4GyE (Gray equivalent) in 33 fractions with an equivalent organ at risk (OAR) constraints. Physical dose distribution was evaluated. GI toxicity risk for different endpoints was estimated using published NTCP Lyman Kutcher Burman (LKB) models for stomach, duodenum, small bowel, and combine stomach and duodenum (Stoduo). A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for dosimetry parameters and NTCP values comparison.

Result

The dosimetric results have shown that, with similar target coverage, ro-IMPT achieves a significant dose-volume reduction in the stomach, small bowel, and stoduo in low to high dose range in comparison to IMRT. NTCP evaluation for the endpoint gastric bleeding of stomach (10.55% vs. 13.97%, P = 0.007), duodenum (1.87% vs. 5.02%, P = 0.004), and stoduo (5.67% vs. 7.81%, P = 0.008) suggest reduced toxicity by ro-IMPT compared to IMRT. ∆NTCP _{IMRT – ro-IMPT} (using parameter from Pan et al. for gastric bleed) of ≥5 to < 10% was seen in 3 patients (33%) for stomach and 2 patients (22%) for stoduo. An overall GI toxicity relative risk (NTCP_ro-IMPT/NTCP_IMRT) reduction was noted (0.16–0.81) for all GI-OARs except for duodenum (> 1) with endpoint grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity (using parameters from Holyoake et al.).

Conclusion

With similar target coverage and better conformity, ro-IMPT has the potential to substantially reduce the risk of GI toxicity compared to IMRT in EDR of LAUPC of the head. This result needs to be further evaluated in future clinical studies.

Role of Proton Beam Therapy in Current Day Radiation Oncology Practice

Proton beam therapy (PBT), because of its unique physics of no–exit dose deposition in the tissue, is an exciting prospect. The phenomenon of Bragg peak allows protons to deposit their almost entire energy towards the end of the path of the proton and stops any further dose delivery. Braggs peak equips PBT with superior dosimetric advantage over photons or electrons because PBT doesn’t traverse the target/body but is stopped sharply at an energy dependent depth in the target/body. It also has no exit dose. Because of no exit dose and normal tissue sparing, PBT is hailed for its potential to bring superior outcomes. Pediatric malignancies is the most common malignancy where PBT have found utmost application. Nowadays, PBT is also being used in the treatment of other malignancies such as carcinoma prostate, carcinoma breast, head and neck malignancies, and gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. Despite advantages of PBT, there is not only a high cost of setting up of PBT centers but also a lack of definitive phase-III data. Therefore, we review the role of PBT in current day practice of oncology to bring out the nuances that must guide the practice to choose suitable patients for PBT.

Proton beam radiotherapy for pancreas cancer

Pancreatic carcinoma is a challenging malignancy to manage with a very poor prognosis. Despite continued difficulties in its management, there have been incremental improvements in outcomes over the past several decades. Achieving the best oncologic outcomes requires a multimodality approach including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Proton radiotherapy enables the delivery of high-dose radiotherapy to the tumor or resection bed while sparing nearby critical organs. Due to their unique physical properties, protons can deliver radiotherapy dose distributions that are not achievable with photons (X-rays) even with advanced photon delivery techniques (e.g., intensity-modulated radiotherapy). Improved dose distributions can lead to reduced treatment toxicity and enable treatment intensification. As better chemotherapy regimens lead to better systemic disease control, it will become increasingly important that local-regional control is achieved. This will in part be accomplished by combining better radiotherapy with more active chemotherapies. Proton radiotherapy provides an excellent means for achieving this.

Clinical Limitations of Photon, Proton and Carbon Ion Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer

Introduction: Despite improvements in radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgical procedures over the last 30 years, pancreatic cancer 5-year survival rate remains at 9%. Reduced stroma permeability and heterogeneous blood supply to the tumour prevent chemoradiation from making a meaningful impact on overall survival. Hypoxia-activated prodrugs are the latest strategy to reintroduce oxygenation to radioresistant cells harbouring in pancreatic cancer. This paper reviews the current status of photon and particle radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer in combination with systemic therapies and hypoxia activators. Methods: The current effectiveness of management of pancreatic cancer was systematically evaluated from MEDLINE^® database search in April 2019. Results: Limited published data suggest pancreatic cancer patients undergoing carbon ion therapy and proton therapy achieve a comparable median survival time (25.1 months and 25.6 months, respectively) and 1-year overall survival rate (84% and 77.8%). Inconsistencies in methodology, recording parameters and protocols have prevented the safety and technical aspects of particle therapy to be fully defined yet. Conclusion: There is an increasing requirement to tackle unmet clinical demands of pancreatic cancer, particularly the lack of synergistic therapies in the advancing space of radiation oncology.

Dose-Volume and Radiobiological Model-Based Comparative Evaluation of the Gastrointestinal Toxicity Risk of Photon and Proton Irradiation Plans in Localized Pancreatic Cancer Without Distant Metastasis

Background: Radiobiological model-based studies of photon-modulated radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer have reported reduced gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, although the risk is still high. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential of 3D-passive scattering proton beam therapy (3D-PSPBT) in limiting GI organ at risk (OAR) toxicity in localized pancreatic cancer based on dosimetric data and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model. Methods: The data of 24 pancreatic cancer patients were retrospectively analyzed, and these patients were planned with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and 3D-PSPBT. The tumor was targeted without elective nodal coverage. All generated plans consisted of a 50.4-GyE (Gray equivalent) dose in 28 fractions with equivalent OAR constraints, and they were normalized to cover 50% of the planning treatment volume (PTV) with 100% of the prescription dose. Physical dose distributions were evaluated. GI-OAR toxicity risk for different endpoints was estimated by using published NTCP Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) models. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the dosimetric data, and ΔNTCP_IMRT-PSPBT and ΔNTCP_VMAT-PSPBT were also computed. Results: Similar homogeneity and conformity for the clinical target volume (CTV) and PTV were exhibited by all three planning techniques (P > 0.05). 3D-PSPBT resulted in a significant dose reduction for GI-OARs in both the low-intermediate dose range (below 30 GyE) and the highest dose region (D _max and V _{50 GyE}) in comparison with IMRT and VMAT (P < 0.05). Based on the NTCP evaluation, the NTCP reduction for GI-OARs by 3D-PSPBT was minimal in comparison with IMRT and VMAT. Conclusion: 3D-PSPBT results in minimal NTCP reduction and has less potential to substantially reduce the toxicity risk of upper GI bleeding, ulceration, obstruction, and perforation endpoints compared to IMRT and VMAT. 3D-PSPBT may have the potential to reduce acute dose-limiting toxicity in the form of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea by reducing the GI-OAR treated volume in the low-to-intermediate dose range. However, this result needs to be further evaluated in future clinical studies.

Novel Radiotherapy Technologies in the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Malignancies

Over the past 2 decades, major technical advances in radiation therapy planning and delivery have made it possible to deliver higher doses to select high-risk volumes. This has helped to expand the role of radiation therapy in the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies. Whereas dose escalation was previously limited by the radiosensitivity of normal tissues within and adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract, advances in target delineation, patient immobilization, treatment planning, and image-guided treatment delivery have greatly improved the therapeutic ratio. More conformal radiation modalities can offer further dose optimization to target volumes while sparing normal tissue from toxicity.

Technological evolution of radiation treatment: Implications for clinical applications

The contemporary approach to the management of a cancer patient requires an "ab initio" involvement of different medical domains in order to correctly design an individual patient's pathway toward cure. With new therapeutic tools in every medical field developing faster than ever before the patient care outcomes can be achieved if all surgical, drug, and radiation options are considered in the design of the appropriate therapeutic strategy for a given patient. Radiation therapy (RT) is a clinical discipline in which experts from different fields continuously interact in order to manage the multistep process of the radiation treatment. RT is found to be an appropriate intervention for diverse indications in about 50% of cancer patients during the course of their disease. Technologies are essential in dealing with the complexity of RT treatments and for driving the increasingly sophisticated RT approaches becoming available for the treatment of Cancer. High conformal techniques, namely intensity modulated or volumetric modulated arc techniques, ablative techniques (Stereotactic Radiotherapy and Stereotactic Radiosurgery), particle therapy (proton or carbon ion therapy) allow for success in treating irregularly shaped or critically located targets and for the sharpness of the dose fall-off outside the target. The advanced on-board imaging, including real-time position management systems, makes possible image-guided radiation treatment that results in substantial margin reduction and, in select cases, implementation of an adaptive approach. The therapeutic gains of modern RT are also due in part to the enhanced anticancer activity obtained by coadministering RT with chemotherapy, targeted molecules, and currently immune checkpoints inhibitors. These main clinically relevant steps forward in Radiation Oncology represent a change of gear in the field that may have a profound impact on the management of cancer patients.

Optimizing neoadjuvant radiotherapy for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer using protons

Approximately 25% of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer present with non-metastatic resectable or borderline resectable disease. Unfortunately, the cure rate for these “curable” patients is only in the range of 20%. Local-regional failure rates may exceed 50% after margin-negative, node-negative pancreatectomy, but up to 80% of resections are associated with regional lymph node or margin positivity. While systemic drug therapy and chemotherapy may prevent or delay the appearance of distant metastases, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on local-regional disease control. Preoperative radiotherapy would represent a rational intervention to improve local-regional control. The barrier to preoperative radiotherapy is the concern that it could potentially complicate what is already a long and complicated operation. When the radiotherapy is delivered with X-rays (photons), the entire cylinder of the abdomen is irradiated; therefore, an operating surgeon may be reluctant to accept the associated risk of increased toxicity. When preoperative radiotherapy is delivered with protons, however, significant bowel and gastric tissue-sparing is achieved and clinical outcomes indicate that proton therapy does not increase the risk of operative complications nor extend the length of the procedure.

Biological characteristics of gene expression features in pancreatic cancer cells induced by proton and X-ray irradiation

BACKGROUND

Radiation therapy is an important alternative treatment for advanced cancer. The aim of the current study was to disclose distinct alterations of the biological characteristics of gene expression features in pancreatic cancer cells, MIAPaCa-2, following proton and X-ray irradiation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using cDNA microarray, we examined the gene expression alterations of MIAPaCa-2 cells following proton or X-ray irradiation. We also isolated the surviving MIAPaCa-2 cells after irradiation and analyzed their gene expression profiles.

RESULTS

Although the cytocidal effects of both types of irradiation were similar at sufficient doses in vitro and in vivo, the affected gene expression profile alterations of MIAPaCa-2 cells irradiated with protons were distinct from those irradiated with X-ray. Interestingly, clustering analysis of gene expression of the surviving MIAPaCa-2 cells was also completely discernible between the two types of irradiation. However, a similar cytocidal effect was still observed in the proton- and X-ray-irradiated surviving cells after re-irradiation, commonly showing biological effects related to apoptosis and cell cycle processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton irradiation treatment for pancreatic cancer provides the distinct biological effect of steady gene expression alterations compared to X-ray irradiation; however, surviving cells from both types of irradiation were still susceptible to the cytocidal effects induced by proton re-irradiation treatment.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy using proton beams for unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We investigated clinical outcomes of proton beam concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for unresectable, locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Records from 42 unresectable LAPC patients (21 male and 21 female, 39-83 years old) with IIB/III clinical staging of 1/41 treated by proton beam CCRT were retrospectively reviewed. Twelve patients received a conventional 50 Gray equivalents (GyE) in 25 fractions protocol and 30 others received a higher dose protocol of 54.0-67.5 GyE in 25-33 fractions. Gemcitabine or S-1 (Tegafur, Gimeracil and Oteracil) was used concurrently. Toxicity, overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) were examined.

RESULTS

Acute adverse events of grades 1, 2, 3 and 4 were found in 4, 15, 17 and 2 patients, respectively. All grade 3 and 4 events were hematologic. Late adverse events of grades 1 and 2 were found in 3 and 2 patients, respectively. No late adverse effects of grade 3 or higher were observed. The 1-year/2-year OS rates from the start of CCRT were 77.8/50.8% with median survival time (MST) of 25.6 months. The 1-year/2-year LC rate from CCRT start was 83.3/78.9% with a median time to local recurrence of more than 36 months. Total irradiation dose was the only significant factor in univariate analyses of OS and LC (p = 0.015 and 0.023, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Proton beam CCRT lengthened survival periods compared to previous photon CCRT data and higher dose irradiation prolonged LC and OS for unresectable LAPC patients. Proton beam therapy is therefore safe and effective in these cases.

Effectiveness and Safety of Simultaneous Integrated Boost-Proton Beam Therapy for Localized Pancreatic Cancer

Purpose:

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and feasibility of simultaneous integrated boost-proton beam therapy in patients with localized pancreatic cancer.

Methods:

Thirty-seven patients with localized pancreatic cancer underwent simultaneous integrated boost-proton beam therapy, and 8 (21.6%) patients received induction chemotherapy. The internal target volume was obtained by summing the gross tumor volumes in exhalation phase computed tomography images. Planning target volume 1 included internal target volume plus 3 to 5 mm margins, excluding the 5 mm expanded volume of gastrointestinal structures, and planning target volume 2 included the internal target volume plus 7 to 12 mm margins. The prescribed doses to planning target volume 1 and planning target volume 2 were 45 GyE (equivalent dose in 2 Gy, 54.4 GyE₁₀) and 30 GyE (equivalent dose in 2 Gy, 32.5 GyE₁₀) in 10 fractions, respectively.

Results:

Overall, treatment was well tolerated, with no grade of toxicity ≥3. Median overall survival was 19.3 months, and 1-year local progression-free survival, relapse-free survival, and overall survival rates were 64.8%, 33.2%, and 75.7%, respectively. Patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost-proton beam therapy after induction chemotherapy had a significantly higher median overall survival time compared to those with simultaneous integrated boost-proton beam therapy alone (21.6 months vs 16.7 months, P = .031). Multivariate analysis showed that induction chemotherapy was a significant factor for overall survival (P < .05).

Conclusions:

Simultaneous integrated boost-proton beam therapy could be feasible and promising for patients with localized pancreatic cancer.

Comparison of different treatment planning approaches for intensity-modulated proton therapy with simultaneous integrated boost for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant radio(chemo)therapy of non-metastasized, borderline resectable or unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer is complex and prone to cause side-effects, e.g., in gastrointestinal organs. Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) enables a high conformity to the targets while simultaneously sparing the normal tissue such that dose-escalation strategies come within reach. In this in silico feasibility study, we compared four IMPT planning strategies including robust multi-field optimization (rMFO) and a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for dose-escalation in pancreatic cancer patients.

METHODS

For six pancreatic cancer patients referred for adjuvant or primary radiochemotherapy, four rMFO-IMPT-SIB treatment plans each, consisting of two or three (non-)coplanar beam arrangements, were optimized. Dose values for both targets, i.e., the elective clinical target volume [CTV, prescribed dose D_pres = 51Gy(RBE)] and the boost target [D_pres = 66Gy(RBE)], for the organs at risk as well as target conformity and homogeneity indexes, derived from the dose volume histograms, were statistically compared.

RESULTS

All treatment plans of each strategy fulfilled the prescribed doses to the targets (D_{pres(GTV,CTV)} = 100%, D_{95%,(GTV,CTV)} ≥ 95%, D_2%,(GTV,CTV) ≤ 107%). No significant differences for the conformity index were found (p > 0.05), however, treatment plans with a three non-coplanar beam strategy were most homogenous to both targets (p < 0.045). The median value of all dosimetric results of the large and small bowel as well as for the liver and the spinal cord met the dose constraints with all beam arrangements. Irrespective of the planning strategies, the dose constraint for the duodenum and stomach were not met. Using the three-beam arrangements, the dose to the left kidney could be significant decreased when compared to a two-beam strategy (p < 0.045).

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings we recommend a three-beam configuration with at least one non-coplanar beam for dose-escalated SIB with rMFO-IMPT in advanced pancreatic cancer patients achieving a homogeneous dose distribution in the target while simultaneously minimizing the dose to the organs at risk. Further treatment planning studies on aspects of breathing and organ motion need to be performed.

Proton beam therapy for gastrointestinal cancers: past, present, and future

Despite the conformality of modern X-ray therapy limiting high dose received by normal tissues the physical properties of X-rays make it impossible to avoid dose being delivered distal to the target. This "exit dose" is likely clinically significant especially for patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers when considering that even low dose received by the heart, lungs, bowel, and other radiosensitive structures can lead to morbidity and even may affect long-term tumor control. In contrast, proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers no "exit dose" and a growing body of literature suggests that this may improve clinical outcomes by reducing toxicity and even allowing for safe dose intensification to enhance tumor control. While there are not yet robust prospective data demonstrating the role of PBT for GI cancers, emerging retrospective data provide a strong rationale for continued study of how PBT may improve the therapeutic ratio for these patients. Here we review these data as well as discuss ongoing clinical trials of PBT for GI cancers.

Current and emerging radiotherapy strategies for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: stereotactic, intensity modulated and particle radiotherapy

The role of radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) is unclear based on studies that used conventional doses and fractionation schedules. Modern radiotherapy techniques have not been studied in depth, however. We reviewed the literature on emerging methods of delivering higher doses of conformal radiotherapy using stereotactic body radiation, intensity modulated radiation, and particle beam radiation, highlighting clinical outcomes and toxicities. The literature review suggests low rates of acute and late toxicities when higher doses of radiation are given with careful attention to normal tissue dose constraints, including for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), escalated doses with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and particle-based therapy. Retrospective evidence suggests prolonged survival for patients who receive biological equivalent doses above 70 Gy. Prospective trials that evaluate modern radiotherapy techniques are warranted for LAPC.

Adjuvant therapeutic strategies for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Of all patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, only 15-20% present with resectable disease. Despite curative-intent resection, the prognosis remains poor with the majority of patients recurring, prompting the need for adjuvant therapy. Historical data support the use of adjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or gemcitabine, but recent data suggest either gemcitabine plus capecitabine or modified FOLFIRINOX can improve overall survival when compared to gemcitabine alone. The use of adjuvant chemoradiation therapy remains controversial, primarily due to limitations in study design and mixed results of historical trials. The ongoing Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)-0848 trial hopes to further define the role of adjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) and adjuvant immunotherapy represent additional possibilities to improve outcomes, but evidence supporting their use is limited. This article reviews adjuvant therapeutic strategies for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, including chemotherapy, chemoradiation therapy, IORT and immunotherapy.

Pencil beam scanning versus passively scattered proton therapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer

Background

With an increasing number of proton centers capable of delivering pencil beam scanning (PBS), understanding the dosimetric differences in PBS compared to passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) for pancreatic cancer is of interest.

Methods

Optimized PBS plans were retrospectively generated for 11 patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with PSPT to 59.4 Gy on a prospective trial. The primary tumor was targeted without elective nodal coverage. The same treatment couch, target coverage and normal tissue dose objectives were used for all plans. A Wilcoxon t-test was performed to compare various dosimetric points between the two plans for each patient.

Results

All target volume coverage goals were met in all PBS and passive scattering (PS) plans, except for the planning target volume (PTV) coverage goal (V100% >95%) which was not met in one PS plan (range, 81.8-98.9%). PBS was associated with a lower median relative dose (102.4% vs. 103.8%) to 10% of the PTV (P=0.001). PBS plans had a lower median duodenal V59.4 Gy (37.4% vs. 40.4%; P=0.014), lower small bowel median V59.4 Gy (0.11% vs. 0.37%; P=0.012), lower stomach median V59.4 Gy (0.01% vs. 0.1%; P=0.023), and lower median dose to 0.1 cc of the spinal cord {35.0 vs. 38.7 Gy [relative biological effectiveness (RBE)]; P=0.001}. Liver dose was higher in PBS plans for median V5 Gy (24.1% vs. 20.2%; P=0.032), V20 Gy (3.2% vs. 2.8%; P=0.010), and V25 Gy (2.6% vs. 2.2%; P=0.019). There was no difference in kidney dose between PBS and PS plans.

Conclusions

Proton therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer using PBS was not clearly associated with clinically meaningful reductions in normal tissue dose compared to PS. Some statistically significant improvements in PTV coverage were achieved using PBS. PBS may offer improved conformality for the treatment of irregular targets, and further evaluation of PBS and PS incorporating elective nodal irradiation should be considered.

Initial experience with intensity modulated proton therapy for intact, clinically localized pancreas cancer: Clinical implementation, dosimetric analysis, acute treatment-related adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes

Purpose

Pencil-beam scanning intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may allow for an improvement in the therapeutic ratio compared with conventional techniques of radiation therapy delivery for pancreatic cancer. The purpose of this study was to describe the clinical implementation of IMPT for intact and clinically localized pancreatic cancer, perform a matched dosimetric comparison with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and report acute adverse event (AE) rates and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of health-related quality of life.

Methods and materials

Between July 2016 and March 2017, 13 patients with localized pancreatic cancer underwent concurrent capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiation therapy (CRT) utilizing IMPT to a dose of 50 Gy (radiobiological effectiveness: 1.1). A VMAT plan was generated for each patient to use for dosimetric comparison. Patients were assessed prospectively for AEs and completed PRO questionnaires utilizing the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary at baseline and upon completion of CRT.

Results

There was no difference in mean target coverage between IMPT and VMAT (P > .05). IMPT offered significant reductions in dose to organs at risk, including the small bowel, duodenum, stomach, large bowel, liver, and kidneys (P < .05). All patients completed treatment without radiation therapy breaks. The median weight loss during treatment was 1.6 kg (range, 0.1-5.7 kg). No patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary scores prior to versus at the end of CRT were 142 (range, 113-163) versus 136 (range, 107-173; P = .18).

Conclusions

Pencil-beam scanning IMPT was feasible and offered significant reductions in radiation exposure to multiple gastrointestinal organs at risk. IMPT was associated with no grade ≥3 gastrointestinal AEs and no change in baseline PROs, but the conclusions are limited due to the patient sample size. Further clinical studies are warranted to evaluate whether these dosimetric advantages translate into clinically meaningful benefits.

Management of Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

With the rapid development of imaging modalities and surgical techniques, the clinical entity representing tumors that are intermediate between resectable and unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma has been identified has been termed "borderline resectable" (BR). These tumors are generally amenable for resection but portend an increased risk for positive margins after surgery and commonly necessitate vascular resection and reconstruction. Although there is a lack of consensus regarding the appropriate definition of what constitutes a BR pancreatic tumor, it has been demonstrated that this intermediate category carries a particular prognosis that is in between resectable and unresectable disease. In order to downstage the tumor and increase the probability of clear surgical margins, neoadjuvant therapy is being increasingly utilized and studied. There is a lack of high-level evidence to establish the optimal treatment regimen for BR tumors. When resection with negative margins is achieved after neoadjuvant therapy, the prognosis for BR tumors approaches and even exceeds that for resectable disease. This review presents the current definitions, different treatment approaches, and the clinical outcomes of BR pancreatic cancer.

Effective radiotherapeutic treatment intensification in patients with pancreatic cancer: higher doses alone, higher RBE or both?

Pancreatic cancer, especially in case of locally advanced stage has a poor prognosis. Radiotherapy in general can lead to tumor volume reduction, but further improvements, such as ion beam therapy have to be promoted in order to enable dose escalation, which in turn results in better local control rates and downsizing of the tumor itself. Ion beam therapy with its highly promising physical properties is also accompanied by distinct inter- and intrafractional challenges in case of robustness. First clinical results are promising, but further research in motion mitigation and biological treatment planning is necessary, in order to determine the best clinical rationales and conditions of ion beam therapy of pancreatic cancer. This review summarizes the current knowledge and studies on ion beam therapy of pancreatic cancer.

Comparison of proton beam radiotherapy and hyper-fractionated accelerated chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVES

We compared the clinical outcomes of proton beam radiotherapy (PBRT) and those of conventional chemoradiotherapy via hyper-fractionated acceleration radiotherapy (HART) after induction chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).

METHODS

Twenty-five consecutive patients with LAPC received induction chemotherapy comprising gemcitabine and S-1 before radiotherapy. Of these, 15 and 10 were enrolled in the HART and PBRT groups, respectively.

RESULTS

Moderate hematological toxicities were observed only in the HART group, whereas two patients in the PBRT group developed duodenal ulcers. All patients underwent scheduled radiotherapy, with overall disease control rates of 93% and 80% in the HART and PBRT groups, respectively. Local progression was observed in 60% and 40% of patients in the HART and PBRT groups, respectively. However, there was no statistical significance between the two groups regarding the median time to progression (15.4 months in both) and the median overall survival (23.4 v.s. 22.3 months).

CONCLUSIONS

PBRT was feasible and tolerable, and scheduled protocols could be completed with careful attention to gastrointestinal ulcers. Despite the lower incidence of local recurrence, PBRT did not yield obvious progression control and survival benefits relative to conventional chemoradiotherapy.

Comparison of gastric-cancer radiotherapy performed with volumetric modulated arc therapy or single-field uniform-dose proton therapy

BACKGROUND

Proton-beam therapy of large abdominal cancers has been questioned due to the large variations in tissue density in the abdomen. The aim of this study was to evaluate the importance of these variations for the dose distributions produced in adjuvant radiotherapy of gastric cancer (GC), implemented with photon-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or with proton-beam single-field uniform-dose (SFUD) method.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eight GC patients were included in this study. For each patient, a VMAT- and an SFUD-plan were created. The prescription dose was 45 Gy (IsoE) given in 25 fractions. The plans were prepared on the original CT studies and the doses were thereafter recalculated on two modified CT studies (one with extra water filling and the other with expanded abdominal air-cavity volumes).

RESULTS

Compared to the original VMAT plans, the SFUD plans resulted in reduced median values for the V18 of the left kidney (26%), the liver mean dose (14.8 Gy (IsoE)) and the maximum dose given to the spinal cord (26.6 Gy (IsoE)). However, the PTV coverage decreased when the SFUD plans were recalculated on CT sets with extra air- (86%) and water-filling (87%). The added water filling only led to minor dosimetric changes for the OARs, but the extra air caused significant increases of the median values of V18 for the right and left kidneys (10% and 12%, respectively) and of V10 for the liver (12%). The density changes influenced the dose distributions in the VMAT plans to a minor extent.

CONCLUSIONS

SFUD was found to be superior to VMAT for the plans prepared on the original CT sets. However, SFUD was inferior to VMAT for the modified CT sets.

The Role of Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer in the Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Settings

Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although surgery remains the only curative treatment, chemotherapy and radiation therapy are frequently used. In the adjuvant setting, radiation is usually delivered with chemotherapy to eradicate residual microscopic or macroscopic disease in the resection bed. Neoadjuvant radiation therapy has become more frequently utilized. This article reviews the historical and modern literature regarding radiation therapy in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, focusing on the evolution of radiation therapy techniques and clinical trials in an attempt to identify patients best suited to receiving radiation therapy.

Integration of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy into the Multidisciplinary Management of Pancreatic Cancer

Although most patients with pancreatic cancer die of metastatic disease, an autopsy study showed that up to one-third of patients die of predominantly local disease. This patient population stands to benefit the most from radiation, surgery, or both. Unfortunately, however, single-agent chemotherapy has had minimal benefit in pancreatic cancer, and most patients progress distantly before receiving radiation therapy (RT). With the addition of multiagent chemotherapy, patients are living longer, and RT has emerged as an important modality in preventing local progression. Standard chemoradiation delivered over 5-6 weeks has been shown to improve local control, but this approach delays full-dose systemic therapy and increases toxicity when compared to chemotherapy alone. Stereotactic body RT (SBRT) delivered in 3-5 fractions can be used to accurately target the pancreatic tumor with small margins and limited acute treatment-related toxicity. Given the favorable toxicity profile, SBRT can easily be integrated with other therapies in all stages of pancreatic cancer. However, future studies are necessary to determine optimal dose or fractionation regimens and sequencing with targeted therapies and immunotherapy. The purpose of this review is to discuss our current understanding of SBRT in the multidisciplinary management of patients with pancreatic cancer and future implications.

Dosimetric parameters correlate with duodenal histopathologic damage after stereotactic body radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer: Secondary analysis of a prospective clinical trial

PURPOSE

Prospectively assess relationships between dosimetric parameters and histopathologic/clinical duodenal toxicities in patients on a phase I trial for pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Forty-six borderline resectable/unresectable patients were enrolled on a prospective trial testing neoadjuvant gemcitabine/5-fluorouracil followed by SBRT (5 daily fractions of 5-8Gy) and concurrent nelfinavir. Post-SBRT surgery was performed in 13 resectable patients, which constituted the patient population herein. Pathologic duodenal damage was assessed using predetermined criteria: 1, no/minimal; 2, moderate; and 3, marked damage. Clinical toxicities were assessed per the Clinical Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Duodenal dosimetric parameters included V5-V40 and mean/maximum doses. Spearman correlation and linear regression evaluated associations between dosimetric parameters and clinical/pathologic duodenal toxicity.

RESULTS

The median duodenal mean and maximum doses were 20 and 37Gy. Median duodenal V5-V40 were 64, 62, 52, 39, 27, 14, 5 and 0cc, respectively. The median duodenal damage score was 2 (four 1, eight 2, and one 3). Higher duodenal damage scores correlated with higher duodenal mean doses (r=0.75, p=0.003), V35 (r=0.61, p=0.03), V30 (r=0.67, p=0.01), V25 (r=0.68, p=0.01), V20 (r=0.56, p=0.05), and the planning target volume (PTV) mean (r=0.59, p=0.03) and maximum (r=0.61, p=0.03) doses. Clinical toxicities did not correlate with dosimetric parameters or duodenal pathologic damage.

CONCLUSIONS

Duodenal histologic damage correlates with mean duodenal dose, V20-V35, and PTV mean/maximum doses.

Clinical outcomes and toxicities of proton radiotherapy for gastrointestinal neoplasms: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) is frequently shown to be dosimetrically superior to photon radiotherapy (RT), though supporting data for clinical benefit are severely limited. Because of the potential for toxicity reduction in gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, we systematically reviewed the literature on clinical outcomes (survival/toxicity) of PBT.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, abstracts from meetings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group, and American Society of Clinical Oncology was conducted for publications from 2000-2015. Thirty-eight original investigations were analyzed.

RESULTS

Although results of PBT are not directly comparable to historical data, outcomes roughly mirror previous data, generally with reduced toxicities for PBT in some neoplasms. For esophageal cancer, PBT is associated with reduced toxicities, postoperative complications, and hospital stay as compared to photon radiation, while achieving comparable local control (LC) and overall survival (OS). In pancreatic cancer, numerical survival for resected/unresected cases is also similar to existing photon data, whereas grade ≥3 nausea/emesis and post-operative complications are numerically lower than those reported with photon RT. The strongest data in support of PBT for HCC comes from phase II trials demonstrating very low toxicities, and a phase III trial of PBT versus transarterial chemoembolization demonstrating trends towards improved LC and progression-free survival (PFS) with PBT, along with fewer post-treatment hospitalizations. Survival and toxicity data for cholangiocarcinoma, liver metastases, and retroperitoneal sarcoma are also roughly equivalent to historical photon controls. There are two small reports for gastric cancer and three for anorectal cancer; these are not addressed further.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited quality (and quantity) of data hamper direct comparisons and conclusions. However, the available data, despite the inherent caveats and limitations, suggest that PBT offers the potential to achieve significant reduction in treatment-related toxicities without compromising survival or LC for multiple GI malignancies. Several randomized comparative trials are underway that will provide more definitive answers.

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.

Adjuvant therapy for pancreas cancer in an era of value based cancer care

In resected pancreas cancer, adjuvant therapy improves outcomes and is considered the standard of care for patients who recover sufficiently post operatively. Chemotherapy or combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy (chemoradiation; CRT) are strategies used in the adjuvant setting. However, there is a lack of evidence to suggest whether the addition of RT to chemotherapy translates to an improvement in clinical outcomes. This is true even when accounting for the subset of patients with a higher risk for recurrence, such as those with R1 and lymph node positive disease. When considering the direct and indirect costs, impact on quality of life and questionable added clinical benefit, the true "net health benefit" from added RT to chemotherapy becomes more uncertain. Future directions, including the utilization of modern RT, integration of novel therapies, and intensifying chemotherapy regimens may improve outcomes in resected pancreas cancer.

A dosimetric comparison of proton and photon therapy in unresectable cancers of the head of pancreas

PURPOSE

Uncontrolled local growth is the cause of death in ∼ 30% of patients with unresectable pancreatic cancers. The addition of standard-dose radiotherapy to gemcitabine has been shown to confer a modest survival benefit in this population. Radiation dose escalation with three-dimensional planning is not feasible, but high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been shown to improve local control. Still, dose-escalation remains limited by gastrointestinal toxicity. In this study, the authors investigate the potential use of double scattering (DS) and pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy in limiting dose to critical organs at risk.

METHODS

The authors compared DS, PBS, and IMRT plans in 13 patients with unresectable cancer of the pancreatic head, paying particular attention to duodenum, small intestine, stomach, liver, kidney, and cord constraints in addition to target volume coverage. All plans were calculated to 5500 cGy in 25 fractions with equivalent constraints and normalized to prescription dose. All statistics were by two-tailed paired t-test.

RESULTS

Both DS and PBS decreased stomach, duodenum, and small bowel dose in low-dose regions compared to IMRT (p < 0.01). However, protons yielded increased doses in the mid to high dose regions (e.g., 23.6-53.8 and 34.9-52.4 Gy for duodenum using DS and PBS, respectively; p < 0.05). Protons also increased generalized equivalent uniform dose to duodenum and stomach, however these differences were small (<5% and 10%, respectively; p < 0.01). Doses to other organs-at-risk were within institutional constraints and placed no obvious limitations on treatment planning.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton therapy does not appear to reduce OAR volumes receiving high dose. Protons are able to reduce the treated volume receiving low-intermediate doses, however the clinical significance of this remains to be determined in future investigations.

Proton therapy for pancreatic cancer

Radiotherapy is commonly offered to patients with pancreatic malignancies although its ultimate utility is compromised since the pancreas is surrounded by exquisitely radiosensitive normal tissues, such as the duodenum, stomach, jejunum, liver, and kidneys. Proton radiotherapy can be used to create dose distributions that conform to tumor targets with significant normal tissue sparing. Because of this, protons appear to represent a superior modality for radiotherapy delivery to patients with unresectable tumors and those receiving postoperative radiotherapy. A particularly exciting opportunity for protons also exists for patients with resectable and marginally resectable disease. In this paper, we review the current literature on proton therapy for pancreatic cancer and discuss scenarios wherein the improvement in the therapeutic index with protons may have the potential to change the management paradigm for this malignancy.

Gastrointestinal cancer: nonliver proton therapy for gastrointestinal cancers

Multimodality therapy for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers carries considerable risk for toxicity; even single-modality radiation therapy in this population carries with it a daunting side effect profile. Supportive care can certainly mitigate some of the morbidity, but there remain numerous associated acute and late complications that can compromise the therapy and ultimately the outcome. Gastrointestinal cancers inherently occur amid visceral organs that are particularly sensitive to radiotherapy, creating a very narrow therapeutic window for aggressive cell kill with minimal normal tissue damage. Radiation therapy is a critical component of locoregional control, but its use has historically been limited by toxicity concerns, both real and perceived. Fundamental to this is the fact that long-term clinical experience with radiation in GI cancers derives almost entirely from 2-dimensional radiation (plain x-ray-based planning) and subsequently 3-dimensional conformal radiation. The recent use of intensity-modulated photon-based techniques is not well represented in most of the landmark chemoradiation trials. Furthermore, the elusive search for efficacious but tolerable local therapy in GI malignancies raises the possibility that proton radiotherapy's physical and dosimetric differences relative to conventional therapy may make it better suited to the challenge. In many sites, local recurrences after chemoradiation pose a particular challenge, and reirradiation in these sites may be done successfully with proton radiotherapy.

Proton therapy in adjuvant treatment of gastric cancer: planning comparison with advanced x-ray therapy and feasibility report

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy improves both overall- and relapse-free survival in patients with resected gastric cancer. However, this comes at the cost of increased treatment-related toxicity. Proton therapy (PT) has distinct dosimetric characteristics that may reduce dose to normal tissues, improving the therapeutic ratio. The purpose of this treatment planning study is to compare PT and intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMXT) in gastric cancer with regards to normal tissue sparing.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The patient population consisted of resected gastric cancer patients treated at a single institution between 2008 and 2013. Patients who had undergone 4D CT simulation were replanned to the originally delivered doses (45-54 Gy in 25-30 daily fractions) using six-field photon IMXT and 2-3-field PT (double scattering-uniform scanning techniques).

RESULTS

Thirteen patients were eligible for the planning comparison. IMXT provided slightly higher homogeneity indices (median values 0.04 ± 0.01 vs. 0.07 ± 0.01, p = 0.03). PT resulted in significantly (p < 0.05) lower intermediate-low doses for all the normal tissues examined (small bowel V15 82 ml vs. 133 ml, liver mean doses Gy 11.9 vs. 14.4 Gy, left/right kidney mean doses 5/0.9 Gy vs. 7.8/3.1 Gy, heart mean doses 7.4 Gy vs. 9.5 Gy). The total energy deposited outside the target volume was significantly lower with PT (median integral dose 90.1 J vs. 129 J). Four patients were treated with PT: treatment was feasible and verifications scans showed that target coverage was robust.

CONCLUSION

PT can contribute to normal tissue sparing in the adjuvant treatment of gastric cancer, with a potential benefit in terms of compliance to treatment, acute and late toxicities.