How NHS investment in proton beam therapy is coming to fruition

Estimating the percentage of patients who might benefit from proton beam therapy instead of X-ray radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

High-energy Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) commenced in England in 2018 and NHS England commissions PBT for 1.5% of patients receiving radical radiotherapy. We sought expert opinion on the level of provision.

METHODS

Invitations were sent to 41 colleagues working in PBT, most at one UK centre, to contribute by completing a spreadsheet. 39 responded: 23 (59%) completed the spreadsheet; 16 (41%) declined, arguing that clinical outcome data are lacking, but joined six additional site-specialist oncologists for two consensus meetings. The spreadsheet was pre-populated with incidence data from Cancer Research UK and radiotherapy use data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. 'Mechanisms of Benefit' of reduced growth impairment, reduced toxicity, dose escalation and reduced second cancer risk were examined.

RESULTS

The most reliable figure for percentage of radical radiotherapy patients likely to benefit from PBT was that agreed by 95% of the 23 respondents at 4.3%, slightly larger than current provision. The median was 15% (range 4-92%) and consensus median 13%. The biggest estimated potential benefit was from reducing toxicity, median benefit to 15% (range 4-92%), followed by dose escalation median 3% (range 0 to 47%); consensus values were 12 and 3%. Reduced growth impairment and reduced second cancer risk were calculated to benefit 0.5% and 0.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The most secure estimate of percentage benefit was 4.3% but insufficient clinical outcome data exist for confident estimates. The study supports the NHS approach of using the evidence base and developing it through randomised trials, non-randomised studies and outcomes tracking.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Less is known about the percentage of patients who may benefit from PBT than is generally acknowledged. Expert opinion varies widely. Insufficient clinical outcome data exist to provide robust estimates. Considerable further work is needed to address this, including international collaboration; much is already underway but will take time to provide mature data.

Streamlining the image-guided radiotherapy process for proton beam therapy

OBJECTIVES

This work evaluated the on-treatment imaging workflow in the UK's first proton beam therapy (PBT) centre, with a view to reducing times and unnecessary imaging doses to patients.

METHODS

Imaging dose and timing data from the first 20 patients (70% paediatrics, 30% TYA/adult) treated with PBT using the initial image-guided PBT (IGPBT) workflow of a 2-dimensional kilo-voltage (2DkV), followed by cone-beam computed-tomography (CBCT) and repeat 2DkV was included. Pearson correlations and Bland-Altman analysis were used to describe correlations between 2DkV and CBCT images to determine if any images were superfluous.

RESULTS

229 treatment sessions were evaluated. Patient repositioning following the initial 2DkV (i2DkV) was required on 19 (8.3%) fractions. This three-step process resulted in an additional mean imaging dose of 3.4 mGy per patient, and 5.1 minutes on the treatment bed for the patient, over a whole course of PBT, compared to a two-step workflow (removing the i2DkV image). Correspondence between the mean displacements from i2DkV and CBCT was high, with R = 0.94, 0.94 and 0.80 in the anteroposterior, superiorinferior and right-left directions, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed very little bias and narrow limits of agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Removing the i2DkV, streamlining to a two-step workflow, would reduce treatment times and imaging dose, and has been implemented as standard verification protocol. For challenging cases (e.g. paediatric patients under GA), further investigations are required before the three-step workflow can be modified.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This is the first report assessing a preliminary imaging protocol in PBT in the UK and determining a way to reduce dose and time, which ultimately benefits the patient.

A Novel Model and Infrastructure for Clinical Outcomes Data Collection and Their Systematic Evaluation for UK Patients Receiving Proton Beam Therapy

AIMS

To establish an infrastructure for sustainable, comprehensive data collection and systematic outcomes evaluation for UK patients receiving proton beam therapy (PBT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Proton Outcomes Working Group was formed in 2014 to develop a national minimum dataset for PBT patients and to define a clinically integrated informatics solution for data collection. The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre formed its Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit in 2018 to collect, curate and analyse outcomes data prospectively for UK-treated patients and retrospectively for UK patients referred abroad for PBT since 2008 via the Proton Overseas Programme (POP).

RESULTS

A single electronic form (eForm) was developed to capture the agreed data, using a data tree approach including conditional logic: data items are requested once, further questions depend on previous answers and are sensitive to tumour site and patient pathway time point. Relevant data automatically populate other forms, saving time, prompting completeness of clinical assessments and ensuring data consistency. Completed eForm data populate the electronic patient record and generate individualised outputs, including consultation letters, treatment summary and surveillance plans, based on organs at risk irradiated, age and sex. All data regarding POP-treated patients are verified and migrated into the system, ensuring that patient data, whether overseas or UK treated, are consistently recorded. The eForm utilises a 'user friendly' web portal interface, the Clinical Web Portal, including clickable tables and infographics. Data items are coded to a universally recognised standard comparable with other data systems. Patient-reported outcomes are also integrated, highlighting significant toxicities and prompting a response. Outcomes data can be correlated with dosimetric DICOM data to support radiation dose modelling.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes data from both POP-treated and The Christie-treated patients support long-term care, allow evaluation of PBT efficacy and safety, assist future selection of PBT patients and support hypothesis generation for future clinical trials.

Heavy charged particle beam therapy and related new radiotherapy technologies: The clinical potential, physics and technical developments required to deliver benefit for patients with cancer

In the UK, one in two people will develop cancer during their lifetimes and radiotherapy (RT) plays a key role in effective treatment. High energy proton beam therapy commenced in the UK National Health Service in 2018. Heavier charged particles have potential advantages over protons by delivering more dose in the Bragg peak, with a sharper penumbra, lower oxygen dependence and increased biological effectiveness. However, they also require more costly equipment including larger gantries to deliver the treatment. There are significant uncertainties in the modelling of relative biological effectiveness and the effects of the fragmentation tail which can deliver dose beyond the Bragg peak. These effects need to be carefully considered especially in relation to long-term outcomes.In 2019, a group of clinicians, clinical scientists, engineers, physical and life scientists from academia and industry, together with funding agency stakeholders, met to consider how the UK should address new technologies for RT, especially the use of heavier charged particles such as helium and carbon and new modes of delivery such as FLASH and spatially fractionated radiotherapy (SFRT).There was unanimous agreement that the UK should develop a facility for heavier charged particle therapy, perhaps constituting a new National Ion Research Centre to enable research using protons and heavier charged particles. Discussion followed on the scale and features, including which ions should be included, from protons through helium, boron, and lithium to carbon, and even oxygen. The consensus view was that any facility intended to treat patients must be located in a hospital setting while providing dedicated research space for physics, preclinical biology and clinical research with beam lines designed for both in vitro and in vivo research. The facility should to be able to investigate and deliver both ultra-high dose rate FLASH RT and SFRT (GRID, minibeams etc.). Discussion included a number of accelerator design options and whether gantries were required. Other potential collaborations might be exploited, including with space agencies, electronics and global communications industries and the nuclear industry.In preparation for clinical delivery, there may be opportunities to send patients overseas (for 12C or 4He ion therapy) using the model of the National Health Service (NHS) Proton Overseas Programme and to look at potential national clinical trials which include heavier ions, FLASH or SFRT. This could be accomplished under the auspices of NCRI CTRad (National Cancer Research Institute, Clinical and Translational Radiotherapy Research Working Group).The initiative should be a community approach, involving all interested parties with a vision that combines discovery science, a translational research capability and a clinical treatment facility. Barriers to the project and ways to overcome them were discussed. Finally, a set of different scenarios of features with different costs and timelines was constructed, with consideration given to the funding environment (prer-Covid-19) and need for cross-funder collaboration.