Proton therapy needs further technological development to fulfill the promise of becoming a superior treatment modality (compared to photon therapy)

Comparative assessment of radiation therapy-induced vasculitis using [18F]FDG-PET/CT in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with proton versus photon radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To assess radiation therapy (RT)-induced vasculitis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by examining changes in the uptake of 18F-fluoro-D-deoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) images of the ascending aorta (AA), descending aorta (DA), and aortic arch (AoA) before and after proton and photon RT.

METHOD

Thirty-five consecutive locally advanced NSCLC patients were definitively treated with proton (n = 27) or photon (n = 8) RT and concurrent chemotherapy. The patients were prospectively enrolled to undergo [18F]FDG-PET/CT imaging before and 3 months after RT. An adaptive contrast-oriented thresholding algorithm was applied to generate mean standardized uptake values (SUVmean) for regions of interest (ROIs) 3 mm outside and 3 mm inside the outer perimeter of the AA, DA, and AoA. These ROIs were employed to exclusively select the aortic wall and remove the influence of blood pool activity. SUVmeans before and after RT were compared using two-tailed paired t-tests.

RESULTS

RT treatments were associated with increased SUVmeans in the AA, DA, and AoA-1.9%, 0.3%, and 1.3% for proton and 15.8%, 9.5%, and 15.5% for photon, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in the ∆SUVmean (post-RT SUVmean - pre-RT SUVmean) in patients treated with photon RT when compared to ∆SUVmean in patients treated with proton RT in the AA (p = 0.043) and AoA (p = 0.015). There was an average increase in SUVmean that was related to dose for photon patients (across structures), but that was not seen for proton patients, although the increase was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that patients treated with photon RT for NSCLC may exhibit significantly more RT-induced inflammation (measured as ∆SUVmean) in the AA and AoA when compared to patients who received proton RT. Knowledge gained from further analyses in larger cohorts could aid in treatment planning and help prevent the significant morbidity and mortality associated with RT-induced vascular complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02135679.

The Status and Challenges for Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Treatments in United States Proton Therapy Centers: An NRG Oncology Practice Survey

Purpose

To report the current practice pattern of the proton stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate treatments.

Materials and Methods

A survey was designed to inquire about the practice of proton SBRT treatment for prostate cancer. The survey was distributed to all 30 proton therapy centers in the United States that participate in the National Clinical Trial Network in February, 2023. The survey focused on usage, patient selection criteria, prescriptions, target contours, dose constraints, treatment plan optimization and evaluation methods, patient-specific QA, and image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) methods.

Results

We received responses from 25 centers (83% participation). Only 8 respondent proton centers (32%) reported performing SBRT of the prostate. The remaining 17 centers cited 3 primary reasons for not offering this treatment: no clinical need, lack of volumetric imaging, and/or lack of clinical evidence. Only 1 center cited the reduction in overall reimbursement as a concern for not offering prostate SBRT. Several common practices among the 8 centers offering SBRT for the prostate were noted, such as using Hydrogel spacers, fiducial markers, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for target delineation. Most proton centers (87.5%) utilized pencil beam scanning (PBS) delivery and completed Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) phantom credentialing. Treatment planning typically used parallel opposed lateral beams, and consistent parameters for setup and range uncertainties were used for plan optimization and robustness evaluation. Measurements-based patient-specific QA, beam delivery every other day, fiducial contours for IGRT, and total doses of 35 to 40 GyRBE were consistent across all centers. However, there was no consensus on the risk levels for patient selection.

Conclusion

Prostate SBRT is used in about 1/3 of proton centers in the US. There was a significant consistency in practices among proton centers treating with proton SBRT. It is possible that the adoption of proton SBRT may become more common if proton SBRT is more commonly offered in clinical trials.