Establishing cost-effective allocation of proton therapy for patients with mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma

Evolving Role of Proton Radiation Therapy in Clinical Practice

With the expansion of proton radiation therapy centers across the United States and a gradually expanding body of academic evidence supporting its use, more patients are receiving-and asking about-proton therapy than ever before. Here, we outline, for nonradiation oncologists, the theoretical benefits of proton therapy, the clinical evidence to date, the controversies affecting utilization, and the numerous randomized trials currently in progress. We also discuss the challenges of researching and delivering proton therapy, including the cost of constructing and maintaining centers, barriers with insurance approval, clinical situations in which proton therapy may be approached with caution, and the issue of equitable access for all patients. The purpose of this review is to assist practicing oncologists in understanding the evolving role of proton therapy and to help nonradiation oncologists guide patients regarding this technology.

Future perspectives of radiation therapy for Hodgkin Lymphoma: Risk-adapted, response-adapted, and safer than before

Classical Hodgkin lymphoma is a lymphoproliferative disease with a good prognosis mainly seen in young people. Nevertheless secondary malignancy, cardiac disease and infertility may affect the long survivors with significant impact on quality of life, morbidity and overall survival. In the last decades several treatment strategies were evaluated to reduce the toxicity of first line treatment such as avoiding radiotherapy or its reduction in terms of dosage and extension. Many trials including interim Positron Emission Tomography evaluation fail to compare efficacy between combined modality treatment versus chemotherapy alone in particular in early stage disease. In this review we analyze which subset of patients could take advantage from proton therapy in terms of toxicity and cost effectiveness.

The Impact of Neighborhood Deprivation on the Survival Rates of Patients with Cancer in Korea

The objective of this study is to investigate the correlation between the neighborhood deprivation index and survival rates of cancer patients in Korea. In this study, 5-year age-standardized survival rates of patients with cancer were determined using the National Cancer Cohort from 2014 to 2018 in Korea. The primary cancer sites were the stomach, colorectum, liver, lung, breast, cervix, prostate, and thyroid. Disparities were measured, and their impact on the overall survival rates was assessed using the Korean version of the Neighborhood Deprivation Index. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to determine the strength of the correlation. The study cohort comprised 726,665 patients with cancer, of whom 50.7% were male. The predominant primary cancer sites were the stomach (n = 138,462), colorectum (n = 125,156), and thyroid gland (n = 120,886). Urban residents showed better survival outcomes than those situated in rural areas. The most deprived quartile had the lowest survival rate, while the least deprived quartile had the highest (p < 0.001). Most cancer types revealed significant correlations between neighborhood deprivation and 5-year age-standardized overall survival, with lung cancer showing the most substantial negative correlation (r = -0.510), followed by prostate cancer (r = -0.438). However, thyroid cancer showed only a marginal correlation (p = 0.069). The results of this study suggested that neighborhood deprivation is closely linked to disparities in overall survival across various types of cancer. A substantial negative correlation between the neighborhood deprivation index and all-cause mortality for lung and prostate cancer, as compared to breast and cervical cancers covered by the National Cancer Screening Program, may reinforce the need to address healthcare access and improve the early detection of cancer in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods.

Individualised Estimation of Quality-adjusted Survival Benefit and Cost-effectiveness of Proton Beam Therapy in Intermediate-stage Hodgkin Lymphoma

AIMS

Radiotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma leads to the irradiation of organs at risk (OAR), which may confer excess risks of late effects. Comparative dosimetry studies show that proton beam therapy (PBT) may reduce OAR irradiation compared with photon radiotherapy, but PBT is more expensive and treatment capacity is limited. The purpose of this study is to inform the appropriateness of PBT for intermediate-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (ISHL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A microsimulation model simulating the course of ISHL, background mortality and late effects was used to estimate comparative quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lived and healthcare costs after consolidative pencil beam scanning PBT or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), both in deep-inspiration breath-hold. Outcomes were compared for 606 illustrative patients covering a spectrum of clinical presentations, varying by two age strata (20 and 40 years), both sexes, three smoking statuses (never, former and current) and 61 pairs of OAR radiation doses from a comparative planning study. Both undiscounted and discounted outcomes at 3.5% yearly discount were estimated. The maximum excess cost of PBT that might be considered cost-effective by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence was calculated.

RESULTS

OAR doses, smoking status and discount rate had large impacts on QALYs gained with PBT. Current smokers benefited the most, averaging 0.605 undiscounted QALYs (range -0.341 to 2.171) and 0.146 discounted QALYs (range -0.067 to 0.686), whereas never smokers benefited the least, averaging 0.074 undiscounted QALYs (range -0.196 to 0.491) and 0.017 discounted QALYs (range -0.030 to 0.086). For the gain in discounted QALYs to be considered cost-effective, PBT would have to cost at most £4812 more than VMAT for current smokers and £645 more for never smokers. This is below preliminary National Health Service cost estimates of PBT over photon radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

In a UK setting, PBT for ISHL may not be considered cost-effective. However, the degree of unquantifiable uncertainty is substantial.

Proton Radiotherapy for Skull-Base Malignancies

Proton therapy (PT) is a form of highly conformal external-beam radiotherapy used to mitigate acute and late effects following radiotherapy. Indications for treatment include both benign and malignant skull-base and central nervous system pathologies. Studies have demonstrated that PT shows promising results in minimizing neurocognitive decline and reducing second malignancies with low rates of central nervous system necrosis. Future directions and advances in biologic optimization may provide additional benefits beyond the physical properties of particle dosimetry.

Pan-Canadian consensus recommendations for proton beam therapy access in Canada

PURPOSE

Proton Beam Therapy (PBT)is a treatment option for select cancer patients. It is currently not available in Canada. Assessment and referral processes for out-of-country treatment for eligible patients vary by jurisdiction, leading to variability in access to this treatment for Canadian cancer patients. The purpose of this initiative was to develop a framework document to inform consistent and equitable PBT access for appropriate patients through the creation of pan-Canadian PBT access consensus recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A modified Delphiprocess was used to develop pan-Canadian recommendations with input from 22 PBT clinical and administrative experts across all provinces, external peer-review by provincial cancer and system partners, and feedback from a targeted community consultation. This was conducted by electronic survey and live discussion. Consensus threshold was set at 70% agreement.

RESULTS

Fourconsensus rounds resulted in a final set of 27 recommendations divided into three categories: patient eligibility (n = 9); program level (n = 10); and system level (n = 8). Patient eligibility included: anatomic site (n = 4), patient characteristics (n = 3), clinical efficacy (n = 2). Program level included: regulatory and staff requirements (n = 5), equipment and technologies (n = 4), quality assurance (n = 1). System level included: referral process (n = 5), costing, budget impact and quality adjusted life years (n = 2), eligible patient estimates (n = 1). Recommendations were released nationally in June 2021 and distributed to all 43 cancer programs in Canada.

CONCLUSION

A pan-Canadian consensus-building approach was successful in creating an evidence-based, peer-reviewed suite of recommendations thatsupportapplication of consistent clinical criteria to inform treatment options, facility set-up and access to high quality proton therapy.

Cardiotoxicity model-based patient selection for Hodgkin lymphoma proton therapy

INTRODUCTION

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable hematological malignancy. Consolidation radiation therapy techniques have made significant progresses to improve organ-at-risk sparing in order to reduce late radiation-induced toxicity. Recent technical breakthroughs notably include intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), which has demonstrated a major dosimetric benefit at the cardiac level for mediastinal HL patients. However, its implementation in clinical practice is still challenging, notably due to the limited access to proton therapy facilities. In this context, the purpose of this study was to estimate the benefit of IMPT for HL proton therapy for diverse cardiac adverse events and to propose a general frame for mediastinal HL patient selection strategy for IMPT based on cardiotoxicity reduction, patient clinical factors, and IMPT treatment availability.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective dosimetric study included 30 mediastinal HL patients treated with VMAT. IMPT plans were generated on the initial simulation scans. Dose to the heart, to the left ventricle and to the valves were retrieved to calculate the relative risk (RR) of ischemic heart disease (IHD), congestive heart failure (CHF) and valvular disease (VD). Composite relative risk reduction (cRRR) of late cardiotoxicity, between VMAT and IMPT, were calculated as the weighted mean of relative risk reduction for IHD, CHF and VD, calculated across a wide range of cardiovascular risk factor combinations. The proportion of mediastinal HL patients who could benefit from IMPT was estimated in European countries, based on the country population and on the number of active gantries, to propose country-specific cRRR thresholds for patient selection.

RESULTS

Compared with VMAT, IMPT significantly reduced average mean doses to the heart (2.36 Gy vs 0.99 Gy, p < 0.01), to the left ventricle (0.67 Gy vs 0.03, p < 0.01) and to the valves (1.29 Gy vs. 0.06, p < 0.01). For a HL patient without cardiovascular risk factor other than anthracycline-based chemotherapy, the relative risks of late cardiovascular complications were significantly lower after IMPT compared with VMAT for ischemic heart disease (1.07 vs 1.17, p < 0.01), for congestive heart failure (2.84 vs. 3.00, p < 0.01), and for valvular disease (1.01 vs. 1.06, p < 0.01). The median cRRR of cardiovascular adverse events with IMPT was 4.8%, ranging between 0.1% and 30.5%, depending on the extent of radiation fields and on the considered cardiovascular risk factors. The estimated proportion of HL patients currently treatable with IMPT in European countries with proton therapy facilities ranged between 8.0% and 100% depending on the country, corresponding to cRRR thresholds ranging from 24.0% to 0.0%.

CONCLUSION

While a statistically significant clinical benefit is theoretically expected for ischemic heart disease, cardiac heart failure and valvular disease for mediastinal HL patients with IMPT, the overall cardiotoxicity risk reduction is notable only for a minority of patients. In the context of limited IMPT availability, this study proposed a general model-based selection approach for mediastinal HL patient based on calculated cardiotoxicity reduction, taking into consideration patient clinical characteristics and IMPT facility availability.