1
|
Freedman GM, Li T, Garver E, Shillington K, Shinkle B, Tchou JC, Fayanju OM, Lin L, Taunk NK. Five-Year Outcomes of a Phase 1/2 Trial of Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation Using Proton Therapy for Women With Stage 0-IIA Breast Cancer. Adv Radiat Oncol 2024; 9:101334. [PMID: 38405317 PMCID: PMC10885562 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101334] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2023] [Accepted: 07/21/2023] [Indexed: 02/27/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose We report the results of a phase 1/2 trial of external beam partial breast radiation using proton therapy. Methods and Materials Eligible patients included stage 0-IIA breast cancer pTis-T2, N0, and size ≤3 cm. Proton beam radiation was used to deliver 3.85 Gy twice daily to 38.5 Gy. The phase 1 portion determined feasibility based on criteria of successful plan creation, treatment delivery, and acute toxicity grade ≥3 in ≤20% of patients. The phase 2 portion had efficacy goals of acute toxicity grade ≥3 in ≤20% of patients and observing physician-rated cosmesis of excellent or good >85% of patients at 2 years. Results From April 2013 to March 2015, there were 12 patients enrolled onto the phase 1 portion, and the preplanned analysis of feasibility was met in all 4 required criteria. From July 2015 through December 2019 there were 28 patients with 29 treated breasts (1 bilateral) enrolled onto the phase 2 portion of the trial out of 45 originally planned. The trial was closed to accrual because of the coronavirus pandemic and not reopened. Thirty-eight breasts were treated with double-scattering and 3 pencil-beam scanning protons. The median follow-up of the 40 patients is 5.4 years (range, 2.3-8.6 years). There was 1 local recurrence. There was no grade ≥3 acute or late toxicity. At baseline all patients had physician-rated cosmesis good or excellent but at 2 years was excellent in 56%, good in 19%, and fair in 25%. Conclusions Proton-accelerated partial breast irradiation delivered with a twice-daily fractionation was feasible and associated with very low acute and long-term toxicity. However, the trial did not meet goals for cosmesis outcomes and was closed prematurely. Future study is needed to determine whether pencil-beam scanning protons or different fractionation could improve these outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary M. Freedman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Taoran Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Elizabeth Garver
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Katherine Shillington
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Bridget Shinkle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Julia C. Tchou
- Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Oluwadamilola M. Fayanju
- Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Lilie Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Neil K. Taunk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Padannayil NM, Sharma DS, Nangia S, Patro KC, Gaikwad U, Burela N. IMPT of head and neck cancer: unsupervised machine learning treatment planning strategy for reducing radiation dermatitis. Radiat Oncol 2023; 18:11. [PMID: 36639667 PMCID: PMC9840252 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-023-02201-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2022] [Accepted: 01/05/2023] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Radiation dermatitis is a major concern in intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for head and neck cancer (HNC) despite its demonstrated superiority over contemporary photon radiotherapy. In this study, dose surface histogram data extracted from forty-four patients of HNC treated with IMPT was used to predict the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of skin. Grades of NTCP-skin were clustered using the K-means clustering unsupervised machine learning (ML) algorithm. A new skin-sparing IMPT (IMPT-SS) planning strategy was developed with three major changes and prospectively implemented in twenty HNC patients. Across skin surfaces exposed from 10 (S10) to 70 (S70) GyRBE, the skin's NTCP demonstrated the strongest associations with S50 and S40 GyRBE (0.95 and 0.94). The increase in the NTCP of skin per unit GyRBE is 0.568 for skin exposed to 50 GyRBE as compared to 0.418 for 40 GyRBE. Three distinct clusters were formed, with 41% of patients in G1, 32% in G2, and 27% in G3. The average (± SD) generalised equivalent uniform dose for G1, G2, and G3 clusters was 26.54 ± 6.75, 38.73 ± 1.80, and 45.67 ± 2.20 GyRBE. The corresponding NTCP (%) were 4.97 ± 5.12, 48.12 ± 12.72 and 87.28 ± 7.73 respectively. In comparison to IMPT, new IMPT-SS plans significantly (P < 0.01) reduced SX GyRBE, gEUD, and associated NTCP-skin while maintaining identical dose volume indices for target and other organs at risk. The mean NTCP-skin value for IMPT-SS was 34% lower than that of IMPT. The dose to skin in patients treated prospectively for HNC was reduced by including gEUD for an acceptable radiation dermatitis determined from the local patient population using an unsupervised MLA in the spot map optimization of a new IMPT planning technique. However, the clinical finding of acute skin toxicity must also be related to the observed reduction in skin dose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Noufal Manthala Padannayil
- grid.506152.5Department of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, 100 Feet Road Tharamani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 400053 India
| | - Dayananda Shamurailatpam Sharma
- grid.506152.5Department of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, 100 Feet Road Tharamani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 400053 India
| | - Sapna Nangia
- grid.506152.5Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, 100 Feet Road Tharamani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu India
| | - Kartikeshwar C. Patro
- grid.506152.5Department of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, 100 Feet Road Tharamani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 400053 India
| | - Utpal Gaikwad
- grid.506152.5Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, 100 Feet Road Tharamani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu India
| | - Nagarjuna Burela
- grid.506152.5Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, 100 Feet Road Tharamani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu India
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Choi JI, Prabhu K, Hartsell WF, DeWees T, Sinesi C, Vargas C, Benda RK, Cahlon O, Chang AL. Outcomes and toxicities after proton partial breast radiotherapy for early stage, hormone receptor positive breast cancer: 3-Year results of a phase II multi-center trial. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2022; 37:71-77. [PMID: 36093343 PMCID: PMC9450061 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2022.08.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2022] [Accepted: 08/24/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Proton therapy (PT) for partial breast irradiation (PBI) in early-stage breast cancer can decrease morbidity versus photon PBI with superior organs-at-risk sparing. We report 3-year outcomes of the first prospective, multicenter, phase II trial of proton PBI. Methods and Materials This Proton Collaborative Group phase II trial (PCG BRE007-12) recruited women ≥ 50 years with node-negative, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, ≤3cm, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) or ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing breast conserving surgery followed by proton PBI (40 Gy(RBE), 10 daily fractions). Primary endpoint was freedom from ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence. Adverse events were prospectively graded using CTCAEv4.0. Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) assessed patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL). Results Thirty-eight evaluable patients enrolled between 2/2013-11/2016. Median age was 67 years (range 50-79); 55 % had left-sided disease, and median tumor size was 0.9 cm. Treatment was delivered in ≥ 2 fields predominantly with uniform scanning PT (n = 37). At 35-month median follow-up (12-62), all patients were alive, and none had local, regional or distant disease progression. One patient developed an ER-negative contralateral IDC. Seven grade 2 adverse events occurred; no radiotherapy-related grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred. Changes in BCTOS subdomain mean scores were maximum 0.36, indicating no meaningful change in PRQOL. Median heart volume receiving 5 Gy (V5Gy), lung V20Gy, and lung V10Gy were 0 %, 0 % and 0.19 %, respectively. Conclusion At 3 years, proton PBI provided 100 % cancer control for early-stage, ER-positive breast cancer. Toxicities are minimal, and PRQOL remains acceptable with continued follow-up. These findings support PT as a safe and effective PBI delivery option.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Isabelle Choi
- New York Proton Center, 225 East 126th Street, New York, NY 10035, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Kiran Prabhu
- Integris Health, 5911 W. Memorial, Oklahoma City, OK 73142, USA
| | - William F. Hartsell
- Northwestern Medicine, Chicago Proton Center, 4455 Weaver Pkwy, Warrenville, IL 60555, USA
| | - Todd DeWees
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA
| | - Christopher Sinesi
- Hampton University Proton Therapy Institute, 40 Enterprise Pkwy, Hampton, VA 23666, USA
| | - Carlos Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Rashmi K. Benda
- Lynn Cancer Institute, Boca Raton Regional Hospital, 701 NW 13 St, Boca Raton, FL 33486, USA
| | - Oren Cahlon
- New York Proton Center, 225 East 126th Street, New York, NY 10035, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Andrew L. Chang
- California Protons Cancer Therapy Center, 9730 Summers Ridge Rd, San Diego, CA 92121, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Alterio D, La Rocca E, Volpe S, Camarda AM, Casbarra A, Russell-Edu W, Zerella MA, Orecchia R, Galimberti V, Veronesi P, Leonardi MC, Jereczek-Fossa BA. Hypofractionated proton therapy in breast cancer: where are we? A critical review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022; 192:249-263. [PMID: 35025004 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06516-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2021] [Accepted: 01/03/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To critically review available literature on hypofractionated (≥ 3 Gy/fraction) proton therapy (PT) for breast cancer (BCa). METHODS A systematic screening of the literature was performed in April 2021 in compliance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses recommendations. All full-text publication written in English were considered eligible. Acute and late toxicities, oncological outcomes and dosimetric features were considered for the analysis. RESULTS Twelve publications met the inclusion criteria; all studies but one focused on accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). Eleven works considered post-operative patients, one referred to ABPI as a curative-intent modality. The dosimetric profile of PT compared favorably with both photon-based 3D conformal and intensity-modulated techniques, while a more extended follow-up is warranted to fully assess both the long-term toxicities and the non-inferiority of oncological outcomes. CONCLUSION Our work shows that results on PT for BCa are currently only available for APBI applications, with dosimetric analyses demonstrating a clear advantage over both 3D conformal and intensity modulated X-rays techniques, especially when ≥ 2 treatment fields were used. However, further evidence is needed to define whether such theoretical benefit translates into clinical improvements, especially in the long-term.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniela Alterio
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy
| | - Eliana La Rocca
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefania Volpe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy. .,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
| | - Anna Maria Camarda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Alessia Casbarra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Maria Alessia Zerella
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy
| | - Roberto Orecchia
- Scientific Directorate, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy
| | - Viviana Galimberti
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy
| | - Paolo Veronesi
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mutter RW, Choi JI, Jimenez RB, Kirova YM, Fagundes M, Haffty BG, Amos RA, Bradley JA, Chen PY, Ding X, Carr AM, Taylor LM, Pankuch M, Vega RBM, Ho AY, Nyström PW, McGee LA, Urbanic JJ, Cahlon O, Maduro JH, MacDonald SM. Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer: A Consensus Statement From the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Breast Cancer Subcommittee. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 111:337-359. [PMID: 34048815 PMCID: PMC8416711 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.05.110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2020] [Revised: 05/12/2021] [Accepted: 05/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy plays an important role in the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer. Recent years have seen improvements in breast cancer survival and a greater appreciation of potential long-term morbidity associated with the dose and volume of irradiated organs. Proton therapy reduces the dose to nontarget structures while optimizing target coverage. However, there remain additional financial costs associated with proton therapy, despite reductions over time, and studies have yet to demonstrate that protons improve upon the treatment outcomes achieved with photon radiation therapy. There remains considerable heterogeneity in proton patient selection and techniques, and the rapid technological advances in the field have the potential to affect evidence evaluation, given the long latency period for breast cancer radiation therapy recurrence and late effects. In this consensus statement, we assess the data available to the radiation oncology community of proton therapy for breast cancer, provide expert consensus recommendations on indications and technique, and highlight ongoing trials' cost-effectiveness analyses and key areas for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| | - J Isabelle Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Rachel B Jimenez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Youlia M Kirova
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France
| | - Marcio Fagundes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida
| | - Bruce G Haffty
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Richard A Amos
- Proton and Advanced Radiotherapy Group, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Julie A Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Peter Y Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Antoinette M Carr
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Leslie M Taylor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Mark Pankuch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Medicine Proton Center, Warrenville, Illinois
| | | | - Alice Y Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Petra Witt Nyström
- The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden and the Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Lisa A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - James J Urbanic
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, UC San Diego Health, Encinitas, California
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - John H Maduro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Shannon M MacDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Choi JI, Fox J, Bakst R, Hasan S, Press RH, Chhabra AM, Yeh B, Simone CB, Cahlon O. Proton Therapy for Partial Breast Irradiation: Rationale and Considerations. J Pers Med 2021; 11:289. [PMID: 33918662 PMCID: PMC8069416 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11040289] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2021] [Revised: 04/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
In an era of continued advancements in personalized medicine for the treatment of breast cancer, select patients with early stage breast cancer may be uniquely poised to benefit from partial breast irradiation (PBI) delivered with proton therapy. PBI presents an opportunity to improve quality of life during treatment with a significantly shorter treatment duration. By targeting less non-target breast tissue, excess radiation exposure and resulting toxicities are also reduced. Proton therapy represents a precision radiotherapy technology that builds on these advantages by further limiting the normal tissue exposure to unnecessary radiation dose not only to uninvolved breast tissue but also the underlying thoracic organs including the heart and lungs. Herein, we present a concise review of the rationale for the use of proton therapy for PBI, evidence available to date, and practical considerations in the implementation and use of proton therapy for this indication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Isabelle Choi
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York, NY 10065, USA; (C.B.S.II); (O.C.)
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
| | - Jana Fox
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
- Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York, NY 10467, USA
| | - Richard Bakst
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | - Shaakir Hasan
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
- Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York, NY 10467, USA
| | - Robert H. Press
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | - Arpit M. Chhabra
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
| | - Brian Yeh
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | - Charles B. Simone
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York, NY 10065, USA; (C.B.S.II); (O.C.)
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York, NY 10065, USA; (C.B.S.II); (O.C.)
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Pasalic D, Strom EA, Allen PK, Williamson TD, Poenisch F, Amos RA, Woodward WA, Stauder MC, Shaitelman SF, Smith BD, Perkins GH, Tereffe W, Hoffman KE. Proton Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation: Clinical Outcomes at a Planned Interim Analysis of a Prospective Phase 2 Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:441-448. [PMID: 32946965 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.09.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2020] [Revised: 09/07/2020] [Accepted: 09/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To perform a planned interim analysis of acute (within 12 months) and late (after 12 months) toxicities and cosmetic outcomes after proton accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 100 patients with pTis or pT1-2 N0 (≤3cm) breast cancer status after segmental mastectomy were enrolled in a single-arm phase 2 study from 2010 to 2019. The clinically determined postlumpectomy target volume, including tumor bed surgical clips and operative-cavity soft-tissue changes seen on imaging plus a radial clinical expansion, was irradiated with passively scattered proton APBI (34 Gy in 10 fractions delivered twice daily with a minimum 6-hour interfraction interval). Patients were evaluated at protocol-specific time intervals for recurrence, physician reports of cosmetic outcomes and toxicities, and patient reports of cosmetic outcomes and satisfaction with the treatment or experience. RESULTS Median follow-up was 24 months (interquartile range [IQR], 12-43 months). Local control and overall survival were 100% at 12 and 24 months. There were no acute or late toxicities of grade 3 or higher; no patients experienced fat necrosis, fibrosis, infection, or breast shrinkage. Excellent or good cosmesis at 12 months was reported by 91% of patients and 94% of physicians; at the most recent follow-up, these were 94% and 87%, respectively. The most commonly reported late cosmetic effect was telangiectasis (17%). The total patient satisfaction rate for treatment and results at 12 and 24 months was 96% and 100%, respectively. Patients' mean time away from work was 5 days (IQR, 2-5 days), and the median out-of-pocket cost was $700 (IQR, $100-$1600). The mean left-sided heart dose was 2 cGy (range, 0.2-75 cGy), and the mean ipsilateral lung dose was 19 cGy (range, 0.2-164 cGy). CONCLUSIONS Proton APBI is a maturing treatment option with high local control, favorable intermediate-term cosmesis, high treatment satisfaction, low treatment burden, and exceptional heart and lung sparing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dario Pasalic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Eric A Strom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas.
| | - Pamela K Allen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Tyler D Williamson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Falk Poenisch
- Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Richard A Amos
- Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas; Department of Proton and Advanced Radiation Therapy Group, Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Wendy A Woodward
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael C Stauder
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Simona F Shaitelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - George H Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Welela Tereffe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Abstract
Gastrointestinal cancers are bordered by radiosensitive visceral organs, resulting in a narrow therapeutic window. The search for more efficacious and tolerable therapies raises the possibility that proton beam therapy's (PBT) physical and dosimetric differences from conventional therapy may be better suited to treat both primary and recurrent disease, which carries its own unique challenges. Currently, the maximal efficacy of radiation plans for primary and recurrent anorectal cancer is constrained by delivery techniques and modalities which must consider feasibility challenges and toxicity secondary to exposure of organs at risk (OARs). Studies using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) demonstrate that more precise dose delivery to target volumes improves local control rates and reduces complications. By reducing the low-to-moderate radiation dose-bath to bone marrow, small and large bowel, and skin, PBT may offer an improved side-effect profile. The potential to reduce toxicity, increase patient compliance, minimize treatment breaks, and enable dose escalation or hypofractionation is appealing. In cases where prognosis is favorable, PBT may mitigate long-term morbidity such as secondary malignancies, femoral fractures, and small bowel obstruction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jennifer Y Wo
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Teichman SL, Do S, Lum S, Teichman TS, Preston W, Cochran SE, Garberoglio CA, Grove R, Davis CA, Slater JD, Bush DA. Improved long-term patient-reported health and well-being outcomes of early-stage breast cancer treated with partial breast proton therapy. Cancer Med 2018; 7:6064-6076. [PMID: 30453388 PMCID: PMC6308094 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1881] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2018] [Revised: 10/25/2018] [Accepted: 10/26/2018] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Because early‐stage breast cancer can be treated successfully by a variety of breast‐conservation approaches, long‐term quality of life (QoL) is an important consideration in assessing treatment outcomes for these patients. This study compares patient‐reported QoL outcomes among women with stage 0‐2 disease treated via lumpectomy followed by whole breast irradiation (WBI) or partial breast proton irradiation (PBPT). Methods In this cross‐sectional study, 129 participants evaluated QoL several years post‐treatment by responding to subjective instruments, including established scalar questionnaires and self‐report measures. Responses were averaged between the two groups. Results At 6.5 years (median) postdiagnosis, participants’ demographic, and clinical characteristics were similar. Patient‐reported outcomes were reported as mean scale scores for the two groups, all displaying significant differences favoring PBPT, including: cosmetic breast cancer treatment outcome scale (BCTOS) (PBPT mean 1.45, WBI mean 1.88, P < 0.001); breast pain (PBPT mean 1.30, WBI mean 1.67, P < 0.05); breast texture (BPT mean 1.44, WBI mean 1.91, P < 0.001); clothing fit (PBPT mean 1.06, WBI 1.46, P < 0.001); fatigue (PBPT mean 2.24, WBI mean 3.77, P < 0.002); impact of daily life fatigue on personal relations (OBPT mean 0.83, WBI mean 2.15, P < 0.001); and self‐consciousness (appearance dissatisfaction) (PBPT mean 1.38, WBI mean 1.77, P < 0.004). Conclusion Patients’ responses suggest that PBPT is associated with improved overall QoL compared to standard whole breast treatment. These self‐perceptions are reported by patients who are 5‐10 years post‐treatment, and that PBPT may enhance QoL in a multitude of interrelated ways.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandra L Teichman
- Department of Radiation Medicine Loma, Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - Sharon Do
- Department of Radiation Medicine Loma, Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - Sharon Lum
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - Theodore S Teichman
- Department of Radiation Medicine Loma, Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - William Preston
- Department of Radiation Medicine Loma, Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - Shelly E Cochran
- Department of Radiation Medicine Loma, Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - Carlos A Garberoglio
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - Roger Grove
- Department of Radiation Medicine Loma, Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - Carol A Davis
- Department of Radiation Medicine Loma, Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - Jerry D Slater
- Department of Radiation Medicine Loma, Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - David A Bush
- Department of Radiation Medicine Loma, Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Braunstein LZ, Cahlon O. Potential Morbidity Reduction With Proton Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 2018; 28:138-149. [PMID: 29735190 DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2017.11.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Proton radiotherapy confers significant dosimetric advantages in the treatment of malignancies that arise adjacent to critical radiosensitive structures. To date, these advantages have been most prominent in the treatment of pediatric and central nervous system malignancies, although emerging data support the use of protons among other anatomical sites in which radiotherapy plays an important role. With advances in the overall treatment paradigm for breast cancer, most patients with localized disease now exhibit long-term disease control and, consequently, may manifest the late toxicities of aggressive treatment. As a result, there is increasing emphasis on the mitigation of iatrogenic morbidity, with particular attention to heart and lung exposure in those receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. Indeed, recent landmark analyses have demonstrated an increase in significant cardiac events that is linked directly to low-dose radiation to the heart. Coupled with practice-changing trials that have expanded the indications for comprehensive regional nodal irradiation, there exists significant interest in employing novel technologies to mitigate cardiac dose while improving target volume coverage. Proton radiotherapy enjoys distinct physical advantages over photon-based approaches and, in appropriately selected patients, markedly improves both target coverage and normal tissue sparing. Here, we review the dosimetric evidence that underlies the putative benefits of proton radiotherapy, and further synthesize early clinical evidence that supports the efficacy and feasibility of proton radiation in breast cancer. Landmark, prospective randomized trials are underway and will ultimately define the role for protons in the treatment of this disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lior Z Braunstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Proton Partial Breast Irradiation: Detailed Description of Acute Clinico-Radiologic Effects. Cancers (Basel) 2018; 10:cancers10040111. [PMID: 29642467 PMCID: PMC5923366 DOI: 10.3390/cancers10040111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2018] [Revised: 03/26/2018] [Accepted: 04/04/2018] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with protons results in a very different acute effect profile than standard whole breast irradiation. We reviewed our initial experience with proton APBI and felt that a detailed description of these effects were needed to permit a common tool to compare experience with this developing technology. Methods: Sixty sequential patients treated with proton APBI on a prospective protocol were evaluated and 43 patients with a minimum six-month follow-up underwent detailed photographic and radiologic analysis. The tumorectomy cavity plus an additional 1.5 cm clinical target volume (CTV) was treated with two or three passively-scattered proton beams to a dose of 34 Gy in 10 fractions in one week. Photographs were taken at the end of radiation, at two weeks, six weeks, and every six months thereafter. Mammography was obtained at six months after radiation and annually thereafter. All visual changes were categorized using the smallest meaningful gradations in findings and are demonstrated herein. All treatment-related mammographic findings are reported. Findings: Visual and mammographic findings showed a clear time-dependent relationship and significant variation between individuals. Peak skin reaction occurred at two to six weeks after completion of therapy. At two weeks most patients had either no visible effects and patchy erythema involving <50% of the treated skin (60%). At six weeks most patients had either patchy erythema involving <50% of the overlying skin (33%) or patchy erythema involving >50% of the treated skin (28%). Only one patient developed any moist desquamation. At six months most patients had no visible skin changes (57%) or a small, circular area of mild hyperpigmentation (33%). Mammographic changes seen at six months were regional skin thickening (40%), residual seroma (14%), localized retraction (26%), and fat necrosis (2%). A subcategorized variant on the CTCAE 4.0 was developed to foster granular recording of these findings.
Collapse
|
12
|
The evolution of proton beam therapy: Current and future status. Mol Clin Oncol 2017; 8:15-21. [PMID: 29399346 DOI: 10.3892/mco.2017.1499] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2017] [Accepted: 11/09/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton beam therapy (PBT) has been increasingly used in a variety of cancers due to its excellent physical properties and superior dosimetric parameters. PBT may improve patient survival by improving the local tumor treatment rate while reducing injury to normal organs, which may result in fewer radiation-induced adverse effects. However, the significant cost of establishing and maintaining proton facilities cannot be overlooked. In addition, there has been significant controversy regarding routine application of this treatment in certain types of cancer. The challenges of PBT in the future mainly include the lack of basic clinical trials, unclear biological effects, immature imaging technology and miniaturization of imaging guidance. Overcoming these limitations may promote the rapid development of PBT. We herein provide an overview of the existing literature on the efficacy and toxicity of common oncological applications of proton beam therapy.
Collapse
|
13
|
Bhattacharya S, Asaithamby A. Repurposing DNA repair factors to eradicate tumor cells upon radiotherapy. Transl Cancer Res 2017; 6:S822-S839. [PMID: 30613483 DOI: 10.21037/tcr.2017.05.22] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Cancer is the leading cause of death worldwide. Almost 50% of all cancer patients undergo radiation therapy (RT) during treatment, with varying success. The main goal of RT is to kill tumor cells by damaging their DNA irreversibly while sparing the surrounding normal tissue. The outcome of RT is often determined by how tumors recognize and repair their damaged DNA. A growing body of evidence suggests that tumors often show abnormal expression of DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair genes that are absent from normal cells. Defects in a specific DNA repair pathway make tumor cells overly dependent on alternative or backup pathways to repair their damaged DNA. These tumor cell-specific abnormalities in the DNA damage response (DDR) machinery can potentially be used as biomarkers for treatment outcomes or as targets for sensitization to ionizing radiation (IR). An improved understanding of genetic or epigenetic alterations in the DNA repair pathways specific to cancer cells has paved the way for new treatments that combine pharmacological exploitation of tumor-specific molecular vulnerabilities with IR. Inhibiting DNA repair pathways has the potential to greatly enhance the therapeutic ratio of RT. In this review, we will discuss DNA repair pathways in active cells and how these pathways are deregulated in tumors. We will also describe the impact of targeting cancer-specific aberrations in the DDR as a treatment strategy to improve the efficacy of RT. Finally, we will address the current roadblocks and future prospects of these approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Souparno Bhattacharya
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Aroumougame Asaithamby
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Cuaron JJ, MacDonald SM, Cahlon O. Novel applications of proton therapy in breast carcinoma. Chin Clin Oncol 2017; 5:52. [PMID: 27558253 DOI: 10.21037/cco.2016.06.04] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2016] [Accepted: 05/28/2016] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
This review will focus on the indications, clinical experience, and technical considerations of proton beam radiation therapy in the treatment of patients with breast cancer. For patients with early stage disease, proton therapy delivers less dose to non-target breast tissue for patients receiving partial breast irradiation (PBI) therapy, which may result in improved cosmesis but requires further investigation. For patients with locally advanced breast cancer requiring treatment to the regional lymph nodes, proton therapy allows for an improved dosimetric profile compared with conventional photon and electron techniques. Early clinical results demonstrate acceptable toxicity. The possible reduction in cardiopulmonary events as a result of reduced dose to organs at risk will be tested in a randomized control trial of protons vs. photons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John J Cuaron
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
| | - Shannon M MacDonald
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Francis H. Burr Proton Therapy Center, Boston, MA 02114-7250, USA
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Giap BQ, Giap F, Einck JP, LePage R, Blasongame DM, Waldinger A, Dong L, Mascia A, Chang A, Rossi CJ, Giap H. A Case Study: Proton Therapy for Male Breast Cancer with Previous Irradiation. Int J Part Ther 2016; 2:579-583. [PMID: 31772969 PMCID: PMC6871644 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-15-00031.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2015] [Accepted: 12/02/2015] [Indexed: 07/01/2024] Open
Abstract
This is a case report of a male patient with previous radiation for a thymic carcinoma (20 years ago) who presented with a left breast cancer. He underwent a partial mastectomy followed by proton radiation therapy with a dose of 5040 cGy to the whole breast in 28 fractions with simultaneous boost to 5800 cGy to the lumpectomy cavity. Proton beam therapy was used instead of conventional photon radiation therapy to spare the heart and lung and to avoid any previously irradiated areas. This study describes the technique and comparative dosimetry for this case.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Fantine Giap
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - John P. Einck
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Lei Dong
- Scripps Proton Therapy Center, San Diego, CA, USA
| | | | - Andrew Chang
- Scripps Proton Therapy Center, San Diego, CA, USA
| | | | - Huan Giap
- Scripps Proton Therapy Center, San Diego, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Taylor PA, Kry SF, Alvarez P, Keith T, Lujano C, Hernandez N, Followill DS. Results From the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston's Anthropomorphic Phantoms Used for Proton Therapy Clinical Trial Credentialing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95:242-248. [PMID: 27084644 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.01.061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2015] [Revised: 01/25/2016] [Accepted: 01/29/2016] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to summarize the findings of anthropomorphic proton phantom irradiations analyzed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston QA Center (IROC Houston). METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 103 phantoms were irradiated by proton therapy centers participating in clinical trials. The anthropomorphic phantoms simulated heterogeneous anatomy of a head, liver, lung, prostate, and spine. Treatment plans included those for scattered, uniform scanning, and pencil beam scanning beam delivery modalities using 5 different treatment planning systems. For every phantom irradiation, point doses and planar doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and film, respectively. Differences between measured and planned doses were studied as a function of phantom, beam delivery modality, motion, repeat attempt, treatment planning system, and date of irradiation. RESULTS The phantom pass rate (overall, 79%) was high for simple phantoms and lower for phantoms that introduced higher levels of difficulty, such as motion, multiple targets, or increased heterogeneity. All treatment planning systems overestimated dose to the target, compared to TLD measurements. Errors in range calculation resulted in several failed phantoms. There was no correlation between treatment planning system and pass rate. The pass rates for each individual phantom are not improving over time, but when individual institutions received feedback about failed phantom irradiations, pass rates did improve. CONCLUSIONS The proton phantom pass rates are not as high as desired and emphasize potential deficiencies in proton therapy planning and/or delivery. There are many areas for improvement with the proton phantom irradiations, such as treatment planning system dose agreement, range calculations, accounting for motion, and irradiation of multiple targets.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paige A Taylor
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Stephen F Kry
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Paola Alvarez
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Tyler Keith
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Carrie Lujano
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Nadia Hernandez
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - David S Followill
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Proton partial breast irradiation in the supine position: Treatment description and reproducibility of a multibeam technique. Pract Radiat Oncol 2015; 5:e283-90. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2015.01.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2014] [Revised: 12/02/2014] [Accepted: 01/29/2015] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
18
|
Cuaron JJ, Chon B, Tsai H, Goenka A, DeBlois D, Ho A, Powell S, Hug E, Cahlon O. Early toxicity in patients treated with postoperative proton therapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 92:284-91. [PMID: 25754632 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.01.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2014] [Revised: 12/02/2014] [Accepted: 01/07/2015] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report dosimetry and early toxicity data in breast cancer patients treated with postoperative proton radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS From March 2013 to April 2014, 30 patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer and no history of prior radiation were treated with proton therapy at a single proton center. Patient characteristics and dosimetry were obtained through chart review. Patients were seen weekly while on treatment, at 1 month after radiation therapy completion, and at 3- to 6-month intervals thereafter. Toxicity was scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Frequencies of toxicities were tabulated. RESULTS Median dose delivered was 50.4 Gy (relative biological equivalent [RBE]) in 5 weeks. Target volumes included the breast/chest wall and regional lymph nodes including the internal mammary lymph nodes (in 93%). No patients required a treatment break. Among patients with >3 months of follow-up (n=28), grade 2 dermatitis occurred in 20 patients (71.4%), with 8 (28.6%) experiencing moist desquamation. Grade 2 esophagitis occurred in 8 patients (28.6%). Grade 3 reconstructive complications occurred in 1 patient. The median planning target volume V95 was 96.43% (range, 79.39%-99.60%). The median mean heart dose was 0.88 Gy (RBE) [range, 0.01-3.20 Gy (RBE)] for all patients, and 1.00 Gy (RBE) among patients with left-sided tumors. The median V20 of the ipsilateral lung was 16.50% (range, 6.1%-30.3%). The median contralateral lung V5 was 0.34% (range, 0%-5.30%). The median maximal point dose to the esophagus was 45.65 Gy (RBE) [range, 0-65.4 Gy (RBE)]. The median contralateral breast mean dose was 0.29 Gy (RBE) [range, 0.03-3.50 Gy (RBE)]. CONCLUSIONS Postoperative proton therapy is well tolerated, with acceptable rates of skin toxicity. Proton therapy favorably spares normal tissue without compromising target coverage. Further follow-up is necessary to assess for clinical outcomes and cardiopulmonary toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John J Cuaron
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Brian Chon
- Procure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey
| | - Henry Tsai
- Procure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey
| | - Anuj Goenka
- Procure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey
| | | | - Alice Ho
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Simon Powell
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Eugen Hug
- Procure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Procure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Flejmer AM, Nyström PW, Dohlmar F, Josefsson D, Dasu A. Potential Benefit of Scanned Proton Beam versus Photons as Adjuvant Radiation Therapy in Breast Cancer. Int J Part Ther 2015. [DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-14-00013.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
|
20
|
Plastaras JP, Berman AT, Freedman GM. Special Cases for Proton Beam Radiotherapy: Re-irradiation, Lymphoma, and Breast Cancer. Semin Oncol 2014; 41:807-19. [DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2014.10.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
21
|
Strom EA, Ovalle V. Initial clinical experience using protons for accelerated partial-breast irradiation: longer-term results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 90:506-8. [PMID: 25304946 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.06.039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2014] [Revised: 06/13/2014] [Accepted: 06/14/2014] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Eric A Strom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Valentina Ovalle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Abstract
Proton beam therapy, the most common form of heavy-particle radiation therapy, is not a new invention, but it has gained considerable public attention because of the high cost of installing and operating the rapidly increasing number of treatment centers. This article reviews the physical properties of proton beam therapy and focuses on the up-to-date clinical evidence comparing proton beam therapy with the more standard and widely available radiation therapy treatment alternatives. In a cost-conscious era of health care, the hypothetical benefits of proton beam therapy will have to be supported by demonstrable clinical gains. Proton beam therapy represents, through its scale and its cost, a battleground for the policy debate around managing expensive technology in modern medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timur Mitin
- Timur Mitin, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Abstract
Densely ionizing radiation has always been a main topic in radiobiology. In fact, α-particles and neutrons are sources of radiation exposure for the general population and workers in nuclear power plants. More recently, high-energy protons and heavy ions attracted a large interest for two applications: hadrontherapy in oncology and space radiation protection in manned space missions. For many years, studies concentrated on measurements of the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of the energetic particles for different end points, especially cell killing (for radiotherapy) and carcinogenesis (for late effects). Although more recently, it has been shown that densely ionizing radiation elicits signalling pathways quite distinct from those involved in the cell and tissue response to photons. The response of the microenvironment to charged particles is therefore under scrutiny, and both the damage in the target and non-target tissues are relevant. The role of individual susceptibility in therapy and risk is obviously a major topic in radiation research in general, and for ion radiobiology as well. Particle radiobiology is therefore now entering into a new phase, where beyond RBE, the tissue response is considered. These results may open new applications for both cancer therapy and protection in deep space.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Durante
- GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research, Biophysics Department, Darmstadt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Galland-Girodet S, Pashtan I, MacDonald SM, Ancukiewicz M, Hirsch AE, Kachnic LA, Specht M, Gadd M, Smith BL, Powell SN, Recht A, Taghian AG. Long-term cosmetic outcomes and toxicities of proton beam therapy compared with photon-based 3-dimensional conformal accelerated partial-breast irradiation: a phase 1 trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 90:493-500. [PMID: 24880212 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.04.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2013] [Revised: 03/04/2014] [Accepted: 03/04/2014] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To present long-term outcomes of a prospective feasibility trial using either protons or 3-dimensional conformal photon-based (accelerated partial-breast irradiation [APBI]) techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS From October 2003 to April 2006, 98 evaluable patients with stage I breast cancer were treated with APBI (32 Gy in 8 fractions given twice daily) on a prospective clinical trial: 19 with proton beam therapy (PBT) and 79 with photons or mixed photons/electrons. Median follow-up was 82.5 months (range, 2-104 months). Toxicity and patient satisfaction evaluations were performed at each visit. RESULTS At 7 years, the physician rating of overall cosmesis was good or excellent for 62% of PBT patients, compared with 94% for photon patients (P=.03). Skin toxicities were more common for the PBT group: telangiectasia, 69% and 16% (P=.0013); pigmentation changes, 54% and 22% (P=.02); and other late skin toxicities, 62% and 18% (P=.029) for PBT and photons, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidences of breast pain, edema, fibrosis, fat necrosis, skin desquamation, and rib pain or fracture. Patient-reported cosmetic outcomes at 7 years were good or excellent for 92% and 96% of PBT and photon patients, respectively (P=.95). Overall patient satisfaction was 93% for the entire cohort. The 7-year local failure rate for all patients was 6%, with 3 local recurrences in the PBT group (7-year rate, 11%) and 2 in photon-treated patients (4%) (P=.22). CONCLUSIONS Local failure rates of 3-dimensional APBI and PBT were similar in this study. However, PBT, as delivered in this study, led to higher rates of long-term telangiectasia, skin color changes, and skin toxicities. We recommend the use of multiple fields and treatment of all fields per treatment session or the use of scanning techniques to minimize skin toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Itai Pashtan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Shannon M MacDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Marek Ancukiewicz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Ariel E Hirsch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Lisa A Kachnic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Michelle Specht
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Michele Gadd
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Barbara L Smith
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Simon N Powell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Abram Recht
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Alphonse G Taghian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Shah C, Badiyan S, Berry S, Khan AJ, Goyal S, Schulte K, Nanavati A, Lynch M, Vicini FA. Cardiac dose sparing and avoidance techniques in breast cancer radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2014; 112:9-16. [PMID: 24813095 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.04.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 112] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2014] [Revised: 04/06/2014] [Accepted: 04/18/2014] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Breast cancer radiotherapy represents an essential component in the overall management of both early stage and locally advanced breast cancer. As the number of breast cancer survivors has increased, chronic sequelae of breast cancer radiotherapy become more important. While recently published data suggest a potential for an increase in cardiac events with radiotherapy, these studies do not consider the impact of newer radiotherapy techniques commonly utilized. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to evaluate cardiac dose sparing techniques in breast cancer radiotherapy. Current options for cardiac protection/avoidance include (1) maneuvers that displace the heart from the field such as coordinating the breathing cycle or through prone patient positioning, (2) technological advances such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or proton beam therapy (PBT), and (3) techniques that treat a smaller volume around the lumpectomy cavity such as accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI), or intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT). While these techniques have shown promise dosimetrically, limited data on late cardiac events exist due to the difficulties of long-term follow up. Future studies are required to validate the efficacy of cardiac dose sparing techniques and may use surrogates for cardiac events such as biomarkers or perfusion imaging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chirag Shah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Summa Health System, Akron, United States
| | - Shahed Badiyan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, United States
| | - Sameer Berry
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Summa Health System, Akron, United States
| | - Atif J Khan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey & Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, United States
| | - Sharad Goyal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey & Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, United States
| | - Kevin Schulte
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Summa Health System, Akron, United States
| | - Anish Nanavati
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington DC United States
| | - Melanie Lynch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Summa Health System, Akron, United States
| | - Frank A Vicini
- Michigan Healthcare Professionals/21st Century Oncology, Farmington Hills, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Radiotherapy of the Breast. Breast Cancer 2014. [DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8063-1_18] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
|
27
|
Moyers MF, Mah D, Boyer SP, Chang C, Pankuch M. Use of proton beams with breast prostheses and tissue expanders. Med Dosim 2014; 39:98-101. [DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2013.10.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2013] [Accepted: 10/25/2013] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
|
28
|
Moskvin V, Lasley FD, Ray GL, Gautam AS, Cheng CW, Das IJ, Buchsbaum JC. Acute skin toxicity associated with proton beam therapy in spine and brain patients. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2013. [DOI: 10.1007/s13566-013-0128-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
|
29
|
Mohan R, Mahajan A, Minsky BD. New strategies in radiation therapy: exploiting the full potential of protons. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19:6338-43. [PMID: 24077353 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-13-0614] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Protons provide significant dosimetric advantages compared with photons because of their unique depth-dose distribution characteristics. However, they are more sensitive to the effects of intra- and intertreatment fraction anatomic variations and uncertainties in treatment setup. Furthermore, in the current practice of proton therapy, the biologic effectiveness of protons relative to photons is assumed to have a generic fixed value of 1.1. However, this is a simplification, and it is likely higher in different portions of the proton beam. Current clinical practice and trials have not fully exploited the unique physical and biologic properties of protons. Intensity-modulated proton therapy, with its ability to manipulate energies (in addition to intensities), provides an entirely new dimension, which, with ongoing research, has considerable potential to increase the therapeutic ratio.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Radhe Mohan
- Authors' Affiliations: Departments of Medical Physics and Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Wang X, Zhang X, Li X, Amos RA, Shaitelman SF, Hoffman K, Howell R, Salehpour M, Zhang SX, Sun TL, Smith B, Tereffe W, Perkins GH, Buchholz TA, Strom EA, Woodward WA. Accelerated partial-breast irradiation using intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy: do uncertainties outweigh potential benefits? Br J Radiol 2013; 86:20130176. [PMID: 23728947 PMCID: PMC3755395 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20130176] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2013] [Revised: 05/22/2013] [Accepted: 05/29/2013] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Passive scattering proton beam (PSPB) radiotherapy for accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) provides superior dosimetry for APBI three-dimensional conformal photon radiotherapy (3DCRT). Here we examine the potential incremental benefit of intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy (IMPT) for APBI and compare its dosimetry with PSPB and 3DCRT. METHODS Two theoretical IMPT plans, TANGENT_PAIR and TANGENT_ENFACE, were created for 11 patients previously treated with 3DCRT APBI and were compared with PSPB and 3DCRT plans for the same CT data sets. The impact of range, motion and set-up uncertainties as well as scanned spot mismatching between fields of IMPT plans was evaluated. RESULTS IMPT plans for APBI were significantly better regarding breast skin sparing (p<0.005) and other normal tissue sparing than 3DCRT plans (p<0.01) with comparable target coverage (p=ns). IMPT plans were statistically better than PSPB plans regarding breast skin (p<0.002) and non-target breast (p<0.007) in higher dose regions but worse or comparable in lower dose regions. IMPT plans using TANGENT_ENFACE were superior to that using TANGENT_PAIR in terms of target coverage (p<0.003) and normal tissue sparing (p<0.05) in low-dose regions. IMPT uncertainties were demonstrated for multiple causes. Qualitative comparison of dose-volume histogram confidence intervals for IMPT suggests that numeric gains may be offset by IMPT uncertainties. CONCLUSION Using current clinical dosimetry, PSPB provides excellent dosimetry compared with 3DCRT with fewer uncertainties compared with IMPT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE As currently delivered in the clinic, PSPB planning for APBI provides as good or better dosimetry than IMPT with less uncertainty.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- X Wang
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Chang JH, Lee NK, Kim JY, Kim YJ, Moon SH, Kim TH, Kim JY, Kim DY, Cho KH, Shin KH. Phase II trial of proton beam accelerated partial breast irradiation in breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 2013; 108:209-14. [PMID: 23891102 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.06.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2013] [Revised: 06/04/2013] [Accepted: 06/08/2013] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Here, we report the results of our phase II, prospective study of proton beam accelerated partial breast irradiation (PB-APBI) in patients with breast cancer after breast conserving surgery (BCS). MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty patients diagnosed with breast cancer were treated with PB-APBI using a single-field proton beam or two fields after BCS. The treatment dose was 30 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE) in six CGE fractions delivered once daily over five consecutive working days. RESULTS All patients completed PB-APBI. The median follow-up time was 59 months (range: 43-70 months). Of the 30 patients, none had ipsilateral breast recurrence or regional or distant metastasis, and all were alive at the last follow-up. Physician-evaluated toxicities were mild to moderate, except in one patient who had severe wet desquamation at 2 months that was not observed beyond 6 months. Qualitative physician cosmetic assessments of good or excellent were noted in 83% and 80% of the patients at the end of PB-APBI and at 2 months, respectively, and decreased to 69% at 3 years. A good or excellent cosmetic outcome was noted in all patients treated with a two-field proton beam at any follow-up time point except for one. For all patients, the mean percentage breast retraction assessment (pBRA) value increased significantly during the follow-up period (p=0.02); however, it did not increase in patients treated with two-field PB-APBI (p=0.3). CONCLUSIONS PB-APBI consisting of 30 CGE in six CGE fractions once daily for five consecutive days can be delivered with excellent disease control and tolerable skin toxicity to properly selected patients with early-stage breast cancer. Multiple-field PB-APBI may achieve a high rate of good-to-excellent cosmetic outcomes. Additional clinical trials with larger patient groups are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ji Hyun Chang
- Proton Therapy Center, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea; Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Republic of Korea
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Shah C, Wilkinson JB, Saini H, Nanavati A, Arthur D, Julian T, Cuttino L, Badiyan S, Vicini F. Is Partial Breast Irradiation a Safe and Effective Treatment Approach for Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer? CURRENT BREAST CANCER REPORTS 2013. [DOI: 10.1007/s12609-013-0102-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
33
|
Abstract
The use of charged particle therapy to control tumours non-invasively offers advantages over conventional radiotherapy. Protons and heavy ions deposit energy far more selectively than X-rays, allowing a higher local control of the tumour, a lower probability of damage to healthy tissue, low risk of complications and the chance for a rapid recovery after therapy. Charged particles are also useful for treating tumours located in areas that surround tissues that are radiosensitive and in anatomical sites where surgical access is limited. Current trial outcomes indicate that accelerated ions can potentially replace surgery for radical cancer treatments, which might be beneficial as the success of surgical cancer treatments are largely dependent on the expertise and experience of the surgeon and the location of the tumour. However, to date, only a small number of controlled randomized clinical trials have made comparisons between particle therapy and X-rays. Therefore, although the potential advantages are clear and supported by data, the cost:benefit ratio remains controversial. Research in medical physics and radiobiology is focusing on reducing the costs and increasing the benefits of this treatment.
Collapse
|
34
|
Shah C, Vicini F, Wazer DE, Arthur D, Patel RR. The American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement for accelerated partial breast irradiation. Brachytherapy 2013; 12:267-77. [PMID: 23619524 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2013.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 130] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2012] [Revised: 01/21/2013] [Accepted: 02/01/2013] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop clinical guidelines for the quality practice of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) as part of breast-conserving therapy for women with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Members of the American Brachytherapy Society with expertise in breast cancer and breast brachytherapy in particular devised updated guidelines for appropriate patient evaluation and selection based on an extensive literature search and clinical experience. RESULTS Increasing numbers of randomized and single and multi-institution series have been published documenting the efficacy of various APBI modalities. With more than 10-year followup, multiple series have documented excellent clinical outcomes with interstitial APBI. Patient selection for APBI should be based on a review of clinical and pathologic factors by the clinician with particular attention paid to age (≥50 years old), tumor size (≤3cm), histology (all invasive subtypes and ductal carcinoma in situ), surgical margins (negative), lymphovascular space invasion (not present), and nodal status (negative). Consistent dosimetric guidelines should be used to improve target coverage and limit potential for toxicity following treatment. CONCLUSIONS These guidelines have been created to provide clinicians with appropriate patient selection criteria to allow clinicians to use APBI in a manner that will optimize clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. These guidelines will continue to be evaluated and revised as future publications further stratify optimal patient selection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chirag Shah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Foote RL, Stafford SL, Petersen IA, Pulido JS, Clarke MJ, Schild SE, Garces YI, Olivier KR, Miller RC, Haddock MG, Yan E, Laack NN, Arndt CAS, Buskirk SJ, Miller VL, Brent CR, Kruse JJ, Ezzell GA, Herman MG, Gunderson LL, Erlichman C, Diasio RB. The clinical case for proton beam therapy. Radiat Oncol 2012; 7:174. [PMID: 23083010 PMCID: PMC3549771 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717x-7-174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2012] [Accepted: 10/17/2012] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Over the past 20 years, several proton beam treatment programs have been implemented throughout the United States. Increasingly, the number of new programs under development is growing. Proton beam therapy has the potential for improving tumor control and survival through dose escalation. It also has potential for reducing harm to normal organs through dose reduction. However, proton beam therapy is more costly than conventional x-ray therapy. This increased cost may be offset by improved function, improved quality of life, and reduced costs related to treating the late effects of therapy. Clinical research opportunities are abundant to determine which patients will gain the most benefit from proton beam therapy. We review the clinical case for proton beam therapy. SUMMARY SENTENCE: Proton beam therapy is a technically advanced and promising form of radiation therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert L Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Wolff HA, Wagner DM, Conradi LC, Hennies S, Ghadimi M, Hess CF, Christiansen H. Irradiation with protons for the individualized treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a planning study with clinical implications. Radiother Oncol 2011; 102:30-7. [PMID: 22112780 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.10.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2011] [Revised: 09/20/2011] [Accepted: 10/17/2011] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Ongoing clinical trials aim to improve local control and overall survival rates by intensification of therapy regimen for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. It is well known that whenever treatment is intensified, risk of therapy-related toxicity rises. An irradiation with protons could possibly present an approach to solve this dilemma by lowering the exposure to the organs-at-risk (OAR) without compromising tumor response. MATERIAL AND METHODS Twenty five consecutive patients were treated from 04/2009 to 5/2010. For all patients, four different treatment plans including protons, RapidArc, IMRT and 3D-conformal-technique were retrospectively calculated and analyzed according to dosimetric aspects. RESULTS Detailed DVH-analyses revealed that protons clearly reduced the dose to the OAR and entire normal tissue when compared to other techniques. Furthermore, the conformity index was significantly better and target volumes were covered consistent with the ICRU guidelines. CONCLUSIONS Planning results suggest that treatment with protons can improve the therapeutic tolerance for the irradiation of rectal cancer, particularly for patients scheduled for an irradiation with an intensified chemotherapy regimen and identified to be at high risk for acute therapy-related toxicity. However, clinical experiences and long-term observation are needed to assess tumor response and related toxicity rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hendrik Andreas Wolff
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|