SP-0340: Model-based clinical validation of proton therapy in head and neck cancer

Proton radiation therapy patient selection and impacts of COVID-19: A scoping review

This scoping review aimed to determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic influenced any modifications to patient selection methods or prioritisation and services provided by proton therapy (PT) centres. This review was conducted based on the PRISMA methodology and Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review guidelines. A literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus, as well as grey literature. Keywords such as "COVID-19" and "Proton Therapy" were used. Articles published from 1 January 2020 in English were included. In total, 138 studies were identified of which 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. A scoping review design was chosen to capture the full extent of information published relating to the aim. Six of 11 articles included statements regarding treatment of COVID-19 patients. Three publications recommended deferred or alternative treatment, two indicated to treat urgent/emergency patients and one reported continuous treatment for infectious patients. Recurring impacts on PT provision included more frequent use of unconventional therapies, reduced referrals, delayed treatment starts and CT simulation, change in treatment target volumes and staffing limitations due to pandemic restrictions. Consequently, telehealth consults, remote work, reduction in patient visitors, screening procedures and rigorous cleaning protocols were recommended. Few publications detailed changes to patient selection or workflow methods during the pandemic. Further research is needed to obtain more detailed information regarding current global patient selection methods in PT, collecting this data could aid in future planning for PT in Australia.

A scoping review of patient selection methods for proton therapy

The aim was to explore various national and international clinical decision‐making tools and dose comparison methods used for selecting cancer patients for proton versus X‐ray radiation therapy. To address this aim, a literature search using defined scoping review methods was performed in Medline and Embase databases as well as grey literature. Articles published between 1 January 2015 and 4 August 2020 and those that clearly stated methods of proton versus X‐ray therapy patient selection and those published in English were eligible for inclusion. In total, 321 studies were identified of which 49 articles met the study’s inclusion criteria representing 13 countries. Six different clinical decision‐making tools and 14 dose comparison methods were identified, demonstrating variability within countries and internationally. Proton therapy was indicated for all paediatric patients except those with lymphoma and re‐irradiation where individualised model‐based selection was required. The most commonly reported patient selection tools included the Normal Tissue Complication Probability model, followed by cost‐effectiveness modelling and dosimetry comparison. Model‐based selection methods were most commonly applied for head and neck clinical indications in adult cohorts (48% of studies). While no ‘Gold Standard’ currently exists for proton therapy patient selection with variations evidenced globally, some of the patient selection methods identified in this review can be used to inform future practice in Australia. As literature was not identified from all countries where proton therapy centres are available, further research is needed to evaluate patient selection methods in these jurisdictions for a comprehensive overview.