First Randomized Trial Supporting the Use of Proton Over Photon Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal Cancer

Determining the optimal radiation dose for locally advanced esophageal cancer: A pooled analysis of reconstructed individual patient data from randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The optimal radiation dose of definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (dCCRT) for esophageal cancer (EC) has always been a concern in radiation oncology and has remained controversial for several decades, we performed a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD) to explore the optimal dose.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing high-dose radiotherapy (HD-RT,≥59.4 Gy) with standard-dose radiotherapy (SD-RT, 50 Gy/50.4 Gy) were identified. Graphical reconstructive algorithms were employed to extract time-to-event outcomes from Kaplan-Meier curves presented in the original RCTs. Using reconstructed individual patient data, summary overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and locoregional progression-free survival (LRPFS) for HD-RT versus SD-RT were recalculated. Hazard Ratios (HRs) of OS, PFS and LRPFS reported were also pooled by the fixed or random effects model.

RESULTS

Six RCTs, including 1722 patients, were included. IPD for OS, PFS, and LRPFS were from 1287, 462, and 722 patients, respectively. Overall, HD-RT had no significant benefits in 3-year OS (RR = 1.00, P = 0.990), 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) (RR = 0.96, P = 0.320) and 3-year locoregional progression-free survival (LRPFS) (RR = 0.88, P = 0.204), compared with SD-RT. Consistent with above results, the pooled HRs of OS, PFS and LRPFS for HD-RT versus SD-RT were 0.99 (P = 0.854), 0.94 (P = 0.628) and 0.91 (P = 0.410), respectively. However, HD-RT had higher grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse effects (TRAEs) (OR = 1.26, P = 0.025). Subgroup analyses were also performed based on the RT techniques, histology, size of the RT target, dose-escalation mode, and stage editions. We found that dose escalation, even in subgroups, did not benefit long-term survival but resulted in a higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 TRAEs.

CONCLUSION

The results provide robust evidence that corroborates current guidelines and supports the clinical practice of employing SD-RT. Additionally, it provides implications for the feasibility of further research into novel drug combinations (e.g., immunotherapy) rather than radiation dose escalation.

Reirradiation With Proton Therapy for Recurrent Malignancies of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction: Results of the Proton Collaborative Group Multi-Institutional Prospective Registry Trial

Purpose

Treatment options for recurrent esophageal cancer (EC) previously treated with radiation therapy (RT) are limited. Reirradiation (reRT) with proton beam therapy (PBT) can offer lower toxicities by limiting doses to surrounding tissues. In this study, we present the first multi-institutional series reporting on toxicities and outcomes after reRT for locoregionally recurrent EC with PBT.

Methods and Materials

Analysis of the prospective, multicenter, Proton Collaborative Group registry of patients with recurrent EC who had previously received photon-based RT and underwent PBT reRT was performed. Patient/tumor characteristics, treatment details, outcomes, and toxicities were collected. Local control (LC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Event time was determined from reRT start.

Results

Between 2012 and 2020, 31 patients received reRT via uniform scanning/passive scattering (61.3%) or pencil beam scanning (38.7%) PBT at 7 institutions. Median prior RT, PBT reRT, and cumulative doses were 50.4 Gy (range, 37.5-110.4), 48.6 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) (25.2-72.1), and 99.9 Gy (79.1-182.5), respectively. Of these patients, 12.9% had 2 prior RT courses, and 67.7% received PBT with concurrent chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 7.2 months (0.9-64.7). Post-PBT, there were 16.7% locoregional only, 11.1% distant only, and 16.7% locoregional and distant recurrences. Six-month LC, DMFS, and OS were 80.5%, 83.4%, and 69.1%, respectively. One-year LC, DMFS, and OS were 67.1%, 83.4%, and 27%, respectively. Acute grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 23% of patients, with 1 acute grade 5 toxicity secondary to esophageal hemorrhage, unclear if related to reRT or disease progression. No grade ≥3 late toxicities were reported.

Conclusions

In the largest report to date of PBT for reRT in patients with recurrent EC, we observed acceptable acute toxicities and encouraging rates of disease control. However, these findings are limited by the poor prognoses of these patients, who are at high risk of mortality. Further research is needed to better assess the long-term benefits and toxicities of PBT in this specific patient population.

Advances and Challenges in Conducting Clinical Trials With Proton Beam Therapy

Advances in proton therapy have garnered much attention and speculation in recent years as the indications for proton therapy have grown beyond pediatric, prostate, spine, and ocular tumors. To achieve and maintain consistent access to this cancer treatment and to ensure the future viability and availability of proton centers in the United States, a call for evidence has been heard and answered by proton radiation oncologists. Answers provided in this review include the evolution of proton therapy research, rationale for proton clinical trial design, challenges in and barriers to the conduct of proton therapy research, and other unique considerations for the study of proton therapy.

Proton Beam Therapy for Esophageal Cancer

Simple Summary

Early-stage esophageal cancer is managed surgically, with the addition of radiotherapy for locally advanced disease. Current photon-based radiotherapy results in a high treatment-related complications, due to proximal organ involvement. The anatomic location of the esophagus raises challenges due to the anatomical changes associated with diaphragmatic motion, weight loss, tumor changes, and set-up variability. These propelled the interest in proton beam therapy (PBT), which theoretically offers a reduction in the radiation exposure to healthy neighboring tissues with improvements in the therapeutic ratio. In this review, we present the role of PBT for esophageal cancer, including treatment planning, early clinical comparisons with photon-based techniques, ongoing trials, current challenges, toxicities, and issues of equity and health services.

Abstract

Early-stage esophageal cancer is often primarily managed surgically, with the addition of radiotherapy for locally advanced disease. However, current photon-based radiotherapy regimens and surgery results in a high incidence of treatment-related cardiac and pulmonary complications due to the involvement of proximal organs at risk. In addition, the anatomic location of the esophagus raises challenges for radiotherapy due to the anatomical changes associated with diaphragmatic motion, weight loss, tumor changes, and set-up variability. These challenges propelled the interest in proton beam therapy (PBT), which theoretically offers a reduction in the radiation exposure to healthy neighboring tissues with improvements in the therapeutic ratio. Several dosimetric studies support the potential advantages of PBT for esophageal cancer treatment however, translation of these results to improved clinical outcomes remains unclear with limited clinical data, especially in large populations. Studies on the effect on quality of life are likewise lacking. Here, we review the existing and emerging role of PBT for esophageal cancer, including treatment planning, early clinical comparisons of PBT with photon-based techniques, recently concluded and ongoing clinical trials, challenges and toxicities, effects on quality of life, and global inequities in the treatment of esophageal cancer.

Proton Therapy in the Management of Luminal Gastrointestinal Cancers: Esophagus, Stomach, and Anorectum

While the role of proton therapy in gastric cancer is marginal, its role in esophageal and anorectal cancers is expanding. In esophageal cancer, protons are superior in sparing the organs at risk, as shown by multiple dosimetric studies. Literature is conflicting regarding clinical significance, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that protons yield similar or improved oncologic outcomes to photons at a decreased toxicity cost. Similarly, protons have improved sparing of the organs at risk in anorectal cancers, but clinical data is much more limited to date, and toxicity benefits have not yet been shown clinically. Large, randomized trials are currently underway for both disease sites.

Executive Summary of Clinical and Technical Guidelines for Esophageal Cancer Proton Beam Therapy From the Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group Thoracic and Gastrointestinal Subcommittees

Radiation therapy (RT) is an integral component of potentially curative management of esophageal cancer (EC). However, RT can cause significant acute and late morbidity due to excess radiation exposure to nearby critical organs, especially the heart and lungs. Sparing these organs from both low and high radiation dose has been demonstrated to achieve clinically meaningful reductions in toxicity and may improve long-term survival. Accruing dosimetry and clinical evidence support the consideration of proton beam therapy (PBT) for the management of EC. There are critical treatment planning and delivery uncertainties that should be considered when treating EC with PBT, especially as there may be substantial motion-related interplay effects. The Particle Therapy Co-operative Group Thoracic and Gastrointestinal Subcommittees jointly developed guidelines regarding patient selection, treatment planning, clinical trials, and future directions of PBT for EC.

N6-Methyladenosine RNA Modification: An Emerging Immunotherapeutic Approach to Turning Up Cold Tumors

Immunotherapy is a novel clinical approach that has shown clinical efficacy in multiple cancers. However, only a fraction of patients respond well to immunotherapy. Immuno-oncological studies have identified the type of tumors that are sensitive to immunotherapy, the so-called hot tumors, while unresponsive tumors, known as “cold tumors,” have the potential to turn into hot ones. Therefore, the mechanisms underlying cold tumor formation must be elucidated, and efforts should be made to turn cold tumors into hot tumors. N⁶-methyladenosine (m⁶A) RNA modification affects the maturation and function of immune cells by controlling mRNA immunogenicity and innate immune components in the tumor microenvironment (TME), suggesting its predominant role in the development of tumors and its potential use as a target to improve cancer immunotherapy. In this review, we first describe the TME, cold and hot tumors, and m⁶A RNA modification. Then, we focus on the role of m⁶A RNA modification in cold tumor formation and regulation. Finally, we discuss the potential clinical implications and immunotherapeutic approaches of m⁶A RNA modification in cancer patients. In conclusion, m⁶A RNA modification is involved in cold tumor formation by regulating immunity, tumor-cell-intrinsic pathways, soluble inhibitory mediators in the TME, increasing metabolic competition, and affecting the tumor mutational burden. Furthermore, m⁶A RNA modification regulators may potentially be used as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for different types of cancer. In addition, targeting m⁶A RNA modification may sensitize cancers to immunotherapy, making it a promising immunotherapeutic approach for turning cold tumors into hot ones.