Potential of automated online adaptive proton therapy to reduce margins for oesophageal cancer

Background and purpose

Proton therapy for oesophageal cancer is administered over multiple fractions, based on a single pre-treatment image. However, anatomical changes can lead to the deterioration of the treatment plan, necessitating manual replanning. To keep this within limits, increased residual margins are employed. This study aimed to evaluate the proposed automated Online Adaptive Proton Therapy (OAPT) strategies on their capability to reduce the need for manual replanning, while also exploring the possibility of margin reduction.

Materials and methods

Two automated OAPT methods were examined: Automated Dose Restoration (ADR) and Automated Full Adaptation (AFA). ADR makes use of dose restoration, restoring the original dose map based on the patient's altered anatomy. AFA adapts the contours used for plan optimization by applying a deformation field, not only correcting for density changes, but also for the relative location of organs. A comparative analysis of OAPT strategies, evaluatingD 98% tumour coverage on 17 patients, was conducted.

Results

The nominal results of non-adapted plans with 7 mm residual margins required manual replanning for 18% of the patients. ADR reduced this to 6%, while AFA eliminated the need for manual replanning. With 2 mm margins, 47% of cases required manual replanning. ADR reduced this to 18%, and AFA further reduced it to 11%.

Conclusions

The proposed OAPT strategies offered a marked improvement compared to a non-adaptive approach. ADR and AFA significantly reduced the necessity for manual replanning and facilitated the reduction of residual margins, enhancing dose conformity and reducing treatment toxicity.

Efficacy and Safety in Proton Therapy and Photon Therapy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Importance

Radiotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Proton therapy has unique physical properties and higher relative biological effectiveness. However, whether proton therapy has greater benefit than photon therapy is still unclear.

Objective

To evaluate whether proton was associated with better efficacy and safety outcomes, including dosimetric, prognosis, and toxic effects outcomes, compared with photon therapy and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of proton therapy singly.

Data Sources

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SinoMed, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases was conducted for articles published through November 25, 2021, and updated to March 25, 2023.

Study Selection

For the comparison of proton and photon therapy, studies including dosimetric, prognosis, and associated toxic effects outcomes were included. The separate evaluation of proton therapy evaluated the same metrics.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data on study design, individual characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. If I2 was greater than 50%, the random-effects model was selected. This meta-analysis is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were organs at risk (OARs) dosimetric outcomes, prognosis (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], and objective response rate [ORR]), and radiation-related toxic effects.

Results

A total of 45 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For dosimetric analysis, proton therapy was associated with significantly reduced OARs dose. Meta-analysis showed that photon therapy was associated with poor OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61; I2 = 11%), but no difference in PFS was observed. Subgroup analysis showed worse OS (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.78; I2 = 34%) and PFS (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; I2 = 7%) in the radical therapy group with photon therapy. The pathological complete response rate was similar between groups. Proton therapy was associated with significantly decreased grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis and pericardial effusion, and grade 4 or higher lymphocytopenia. Single-rate analysis of proton therapy found 89% OS and 65% PFS at 1 year, 71% OS and 56% PFS at 2 years, 63% OS and 48% PFS at 3 years, and 56% OS and 42% PFS at 5 years. The incidence of grade 2 or higher radiation esophagitis was 50%, grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis was 2%, grade 2 or higher pleural effusion was 4%, grade 2 or higher pericardial effusion was 3%, grade 3 or higher radiation esophagitis was 8%, and grade 4 or higher lymphocytopenia was 17%.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this meta-analysis, proton therapy was associated with reduced OARs doses and toxic effects and improved prognosis compared with photon therapy for esophageal cancer, but caution is warranted. In the future, these findings should be further validated in randomized clinical trials.

Proton Therapy With Concurrent Chemotherapy for Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: Toxicity, Disease Control, and Survival Outcomes

Purpose

When treating esophageal cancer with radiation therapy, it is critical to limit the dose to surrounding structures, such as the lung and/or heart, as much as possible. Proton radiation therapy allows a reduced radiation dose to both the heart and lungs, potentially reducing the risk of cardiopulmonary toxicity. Here, we report disease control, survival, and toxicity outcomes among patients with esophageal cancer treated with proton radiation therapy and concurrent chemotherapy (chemoradiation therapy; CRT) with or without surgery.

Materials and Methods

We enrolled 17 patients with thoracic esophageal carcinoma on a prospective registry between 2010 and 2021. Patients received proton therapy to a median dose of 50.4-GyRBE (range, 50.4-64.8) in 1.8-Gy fractions.Acute and late toxicities were graded per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0 (US National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland). In addition, disease control, patterns of failure, and survival outcomes were collected.

Results

Nine patients received preoperative CRT, and 8 received definitive CRT. Overall, 88% of patients had adenocarcinoma, and 12% had squamous cell carcinoma. With a median follow-up of 2.1 years (range, 0.5-9.4), the 3-year local progression-free, disease-free, and overall survival rates were 85%, 66%, and 55%, respectively. Two patients (1 with adenocarcinoma and 1 with squamous cell carcinoma) recurred at the primary site after refusing surgery after a complete clinical response to CRT. The most common acute nonhematologic and hematologic toxicities, respectively, were grades 1 to 3 esophagitis and grades 1 to 4 leukopenia, both affecting 82% of patients. No acute cardiopulmonary toxicities were observed in the absence of surgical resection. Reagarding surgical complications, 3 postoperative cardiopulmonary complications occurred as follows: 1 grade 1 pleural effusion, 1 grade 3 pleural effusion, and 1 grade 2 anastomotic leak. Two severe late CRT toxicities occurred: 1 grade 5 tracheoesophageal fistula and 1 grade 3 esophageal stenosis requiring a feeding tube.

Conclusion

Proton radiation therapy is a safe, effective treatment for esophageal cancer with increasing evidence supporting its role in reducing cardiopulmonary toxicity.

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.

Comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy beam configurations for treating thoracic esophageal cancer

•

Dosimetric benefit of proton over x-ray treatment for thoracic esophageal cancer.

•

Reduction of pulmonary and cardiac toxicity by proton therapy.

•

Intensity modulated proton therapy beam configurations designed by tumor location.

Background and purpose

Specific proton-beam configurations are needed to spare organs at risk (OARs), including lungs, heart, and spinal cord, when treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the thoracic region. This study aimed to propose new intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) beam configurations and to demonstrate the benefit of IMPT compared with intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMXT) for treating ESCC.

Material and methods

IMPT plans with three different beam angle configurations were generated on CT datasets of 25 ESCC patients that were treated with IMXT. The IMPT beam designs were two commonly-used beam configurations (anteroposterior and posterior oblique) and a recently proposed beam configuration (anterosuperior with posteroinferior). The target doses were 50–54 Gy(RBE) and 60–64 Gy(RBE) to the low-risk and high-risk target volumes, respectively. Robust optimization was applied for the IMPT plans. The differences in the dose-volume parameters between the IMXT and IMPT plans were compared.

Results

With target coverage comparable to standard IMXT, IMPT had significantly lower mean doses to the OARs. IMPT with an anteroposterior opposing beam generated the lowest lung dose (mean = 7.1 Gy(RBE), V₂₀ = 14.1%) and the anterosuperior with posteroinferior beam resulted in the lowest heart dose (mean = 12.8 Gy(RBE), V₃₀ = 15.7%) and liver dose (mean = 3.9 Gy(RBE), V₃₀ = 5.9%). For the subgroup of patients with an inferior tumor location (PTVs overlapping a part of the contoured heart), the novel beam demonstrated the optimal OARs sparing.

Conclusion

Compared with IMXT, the IMPT plans significantly reduced the radiation dose to the surrounding organs when treating ESCC. IMPT beam configuration selection depends on the tumor location relative to the heart.

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.

Current status and application of proton therapy for esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer remains one of the leading causes of death from cancer across the world despite advances in multimodality therapy. Although early-stage disease can often be treated surgically, the current state of the art for locally advanced disease is concurrent chemoradiation, followed by surgery whenever possible. The uniform midline tumor location puts a strong importance on the need for precise delivery of radiation that would minimize dose to the heart and lungs, and the biophysical properties of proton beam makes this modality potential ideal for esophageal cancer treatment. This review covers the current state of knowledge of proton therapy for esophageal cancer, focusing on published retrospective single- and multi-institutional clinical studies, and emerging data from prospective clinical trials, that support the benefit of protons vs photon-based radiation in reducing postoperative complications, cardiac toxicity, and severe radiation induced immune suppression, which may improve survival outcomes for patients. In addition, we discuss the incorporation of immunotherapy to the curative management of esophageal cancers in the not-too-distant future. However, there is still a lack of high-level evidence to support proton therapy in the treatment of esophageal cancer, and proton therapy has its limitations in clinical application. It is expected to see the results of future large-scale randomized clinical trials and the continuous improvement of proton radiotherapy technology.

Visualized Analysis of Heavy Ion Radiotherapy: Development, Barriers and Future Directions

Background

Heavy ion radiotherapy (HIRT) has great advantages as tumor radiotherapy.

Methods

Based on 1,558 literatures from core collections of Web of Science from 1980 to 2020, this study visually analyzes the evolution of HIRT research, and sorts out the hotspots and trends of HIRT research using CiteSpace software.

Results

Research on HIRT has received more extensive attention over the last 40 years. The development of HIRT is not only closely related to radiation and oncology, but also closely related to the development of human society. In terms of citation frequency, "International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics" was the top journal. In terms of influence, "Radiotherapy and Oncology" was the top journal. "Radiation therapy" and "carbon ion radiotherapy" were the two most frequently used keywords in this field.

Conclusion

The evolution of the HIRT research has occurred in approximately three stages, including technological exploration, safety and effectiveness research and technological breakthroughs. Finally, some suggestions for future research are put forward.

The Promise of Proton Beam Therapy for Oesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Dosimetric and Clinical Outcomes

AIMS

Due to its physical advantages over photon radiotherapy, proton beam therapy (PBT) has the potential to improve outcomes from oesophageal cancer. However, for many tumour sites, high-quality evidence supporting PBT use is limited. We carried out a systematic review of published literature of PBT in oesophageal cancer to ascertain potential benefits of this technology and to gauge the current state-of-the-art. We considered if further evaluation of this technology in oesophageal cancer is desirable.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science using structured search terms was carried out. Inclusion criteria included non-metastatic cancer, full articles and English language studies only. Articles deliberating technical aspects of PBT planning or delivery were excluded to maintain a clinical focus. Studies were divided into two sections: dosimetric and clinical studies; qualitatively synthesised.

RESULTS

In total, 467 records were screened, with 32 included for final qualitative synthesis. This included two prospective studies with the rest based on retrospective data. There was heterogeneity in treatment protocols, including treatment intent (neoadjuvant or definitive), dose, fractionation and chemotherapy used. Compared with photon radiotherapy, PBT seemed to reduce dose to organs at risk, especially lung and heart, although not for all reported parameters. Toxicity outcomes, including postoperative complications, were reduced compared with photon radiotherapy. Survival outcomes were reported to be at least comparable with photon radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of high-quality evidence supporting PBT use in oesophageal cancer. Wide variation in intent and treatment protocols means that the role and 'gold-standard' treatment protocol are yet to be defined. Current literature suggests significant benefit in terms of toxicity reduction, especially in the postoperative period, with comparable survival outcomes. PBT in oesophageal cancer holds significant promise for improving patient outcomes but requires robust systematic evaluation in prospective studies.

Proposal for the delineation of neoadjuvant target volumes in oesophageal cancer

PURPOSE

To define instructions for delineation of target volumes in the neoadjuvant setting in oesophageal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Radiation oncologists of five European centres participated in the following consensus process: [1] revision of published (MEDLINE) and national/institutional delineation guidelines; [2] first delineation round of five cases (patient 1-5) according to national/institutional guidelines; [3] consensus meeting to discuss the results of step 1 and 2, followed by a target volume delineation proposal; [4] circulation of proposed instructions for target volume delineation and atlas for feedback; [5] second delineation round of five new cases (patient 6-10) to peer review and validate (two additional centres) the agreed delineation guidelines and atlas; [6] final consensus on the delineation guidelines depicted in an atlas. Target volumes of the delineation rounds were compared between centres by Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and maximum/mean undirected Hausdorff distances (H_max/H_mean).

RESULTS

In the first delineation round, the consistency between centres was moderate (CTVtotal: DSC = 0.59-0.88; H_mean = 0.2-0.4 cm). Delineations in the second round were much more consistent. Lowest variability was obtained between centres participating in the consensus meeting (CTVtotal: DSC: p < 0.050 between rounds for patients 6/7/8/10; H_mean: p < 0.050 for patients 7/8/10), compared to validation centres (CTVtotal: DSC: p < 0.050 between validation and consensus meeting centres for patients 6/7/8; H_mean: p < 0.050 for patients 7/10). A proposal for delineation of target volumes and an atlas were generated.

CONCLUSION

We proposed instructions for target volume delineation and an atlas for the neoadjuvant radiation treatment in oesophageal cancer. These will enable a more uniform delineation of patients in clinical practice and clinical trials.

The use of tumour markers in oesophageal cancer to quantify setup errors and baseline shifts during treatment

•

Implantation of solid gold markers safe.

•

Inter-fractional motion for markers in distal oesophagus largest cranio-caudally.

•

Reduced radiotherapy treatment margins with soft-tissue vs. bony-anatomy matching.

•

Impact of intra-fractional baseline shifts on margin calculation rather small.

Purpose

To prospectively evaluate the feasibility of solid gold marker placement in oesophageal cancer patients and to quantify inter-fractional and intra-fractional (baseline shift) marker motion during radiation treatment. Radiotherapy target margins and matching strategies were investigated.

Materials/methods

Thirty-four markers were implanted by echo-endoscopy in 10 patients. Patients received a planning 4D CT, daily pre-treatment cone-beam CT (CBCT) and a post-treatment CBCT for at least five fractions. For fractions with both pre- and post-treatment CBCT, marker displacement between planning CT and pre-treatment CBCT (inter-fractional) and between pre-treatment and post-treatment CBCT (intra-fractional; only for fractions without rotational treatment couch correction) were calculated in left–right (LR), cranio-caudal (CC) and anterior-posterior (AP) direction after bony-anatomy and soft-tissue matching. Systematic/random setup errors were estimated; treatment margins were calculated.

Results

No serious adverse events occurred. Twenty-three (67.6%) markers were visible during radiotherapy (n = 3 middle oesophagus, n = 16 distal oesophagus, n = 4 proximal stomach). Margins for inter-fractional displacement after bony-anatomy match depended on the localisation of the primary tumour and were 11.2 mm (LR), 16.4 mm (CC) and 8.2 mm (AP) for distal markers. Soft-tissue matching reduced the CC margin for these markers (16.4 mm to 10.5 mm). The mean intra-fractional shift of 12 distal markers was 0.4 mm (LR), 2.3 mm (CC) and 0.7 mm (AP). Inclusion of this shift resulted in treatment margins for distal markers of 12.8 mm (LR), 17.3 mm (CC) and 10.4 mm (AP) after bony-anatomy matching and 12.4 mm (LR), 11.4 mm (CC) and 9.7 mm (AP) after soft-tissue matching.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that the implantation of gold markers was safe, albeit less stable compared to other marker types. Inter-fractional motion was largest cranio-caudally for markers in the distal oesophagus, which was reduced after soft-tissue compared to bony-anatomy matching. The impact of intra-fractional baseline shifts on margin calculation was rather small.

Randomized Phase IIB Trial of Proton Beam Therapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

PURPOSE

Whether dosimetric advantages of proton beam therapy (PBT) translate to improved clinical outcomes compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) remains unclear. This randomized trial compared total toxicity burden (TTB) and progression-free survival (PFS) between these modalities for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

This phase IIB trial randomly assigned patients to PBT or IMRT (50.4 Gy), stratified for histology, resectability, induction chemotherapy, and stage. The prespecified coprimary end points were TTB and PFS. TTB, a composite score of 11 distinct adverse events (AEs), including common toxicities as well as postoperative complications (POCs) in operated patients, quantified the extent of AE severity experienced over the duration of 1 year following treatment. The trial was conducted using Bayesian group sequential design with three planned interim analyses at 33%, 50%, and 67% of expected accrual (adjusted for follow-up).

RESULTS

This trial (commenced April 2012) was approved for closure and analysis upon activation of NRG-GI006 in March 2019, which occurred immediately prior to the planned 67% interim analysis. Altogether, 145 patients were randomly assigned (72 IMRT, 73 PBT), and 107 patients (61 IMRT, 46 PBT) were evaluable. Median follow-up was 44.1 months. Fifty-one patients (30 IMRT, 21 PBT) underwent esophagectomy; 80% of PBT was passive scattering. The posterior mean TTB was 2.3 times higher for IMRT (39.9; 95% highest posterior density interval, 26.2-54.9) than PBT (17.4; 10.5-25.0). The mean POC score was 7.6 times higher for IMRT (19.1; 7.3-32.3) versus PBT (2.5; 0.3-5.2). The posterior probability that mean TTB was lower for PBT compared with IMRT was 0.9989, which exceeded the trial's stopping boundary of 0.9942 at the 67% interim analysis. The 3-year PFS rate (50.8% v 51.2%) and 3-year overall survival rates (44.5% v 44.5%) were similar.

CONCLUSION

For locally advanced esophageal cancer, PBT reduced the risk and severity of AEs compared with IMRT while maintaining similar PFS.

Severe lymphopenia during neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer: A propensity matched analysis of the relative risk of proton versus photon-based radiation therapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Circulating lymphocytes are exquisitely sensitive to radiation exposure, even to low scattered doses which can vary drastically between radiation modalities. We compared the relative risk of radiation-induced lymphopenia between intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or proton beam therapy (PBT) in esophageal cancer (EC) patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

EC patients treated with IMRT and PBT were propensity matched based on key clinical variables. Treatment-associated lymphopenia was graded using CTCAE v.4.0. Using matched cohorts, univariate and multivariable multiple logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with increased risk of grade 4 lymphopenia as well as characterize their relative contributions.

RESULTS

Among the 480 patients treated with nCRT, 136 IMRT patients were propensity score matched with 136 PBT patients. In the matched groups, a greater proportion of the IMRT patients (55/136, 40.4%) developed grade 4 lymphopenia during nCRT compared with the PBT patients (24/136, 17.6%, P < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, PBT was significantly associated with a reduction in grade 4 lymphopenia risk (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.52; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

PBT is associated with significant risk reduction in grade 4 lymphopenia during nCRT in esophageal cancer.

Dosimetric comparison to the heart and cardiac substructure in a large cohort of esophageal cancer patients treated with proton beam therapy or Intensity-modulated radiation therapy

PURPOSE

To compare heart and cardiac substructure radiation exposure using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) vs. proton beam therapy (PBT) for patients with mid- to distal esophageal cancer who received chemoradiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We identified 727 esophageal cancer patients who received IMRT (n=477) or PBT (n=250) from March 2004 to December 2015. All patients were treated to 50.4Gy with IMRT or to 50.4 cobalt Gray equivalents with PBT. IMRT and PBT dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of the whole heart, atria, ventricles, and four coronary arteries were compared. For PBT patients, passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT; n=237) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT; n=13) DVHs were compared.

RESULTS

Compared with IMRT, PBT resulted in significantly lower mean heart dose (MHD) and heart V5, V10, V20, V30, and V40as well as lower radiation exposure to the four chambers and four coronary arteries. Compared with PSPT, IMPT resulted in significantly lower heart V20, V30, and V40 but not MHD or heart V5 or V10. IMPT also resulted in significantly lower radiation doses to the left atrium, right atrium, left main coronary artery, and left circumflex artery, but not the left ventricle, right ventricle, left anterior descending artery, or right coronary artery. Factors associated with lower MHD included PBT (P<0.001), smaller planning target volume (PTV; P<0.001), and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) tumor (P<0.001). Among PBT patients, factors associated with lower MHD included IMPT (P=0.038), beam arrangement other than AP/PA (P<0.001), smaller PTV (P<0.001), and GEJ tumor (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mid- to distal esophageal cancer, PBT results in significantly lower radiation exposure to the whole heart and cardiac substructures than IMRT. Long-term studies are necessary to determine how this cardiac sparing effect impacts the development of coronary artery disease and other cardiac complications.

Clinical outcomes of intensity modulated proton therapy and concurrent chemotherapy in esophageal carcinoma: a single institutional experience

Purpose

Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is an emerging advanced radiation technique. Although dosimetric studies demonstrate the superiority of IMPT for improving target conformity and reducing unnecessary dose to critical normal tissues, clinical experience is limited. We aim to describe our preliminary experience implementing IMPT concurrently with chemotherapy in esophageal carcinoma (EC).

Methods and materials

From May 2011 through February 2016, 19 patients with EC (median age, 73 years) were treated with IMPT using 180 to 250 MV protons with a median dose of 50.4 Gy relative biological effectiveness in 28 fractions concurrently with chemotherapy. Beam arrangement was most commonly in the posteroanterior and bilateral posterior oblique beams. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess survival outcomes. Treatment-related toxicities were evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.

Results

Single-field and multifield optimization was performed in 13 and 6 patients, respectively. The average gross tumor volume was 69.1 cm³; mean lung and heart dose delivered were 4.94 and 7.86 Gy, respectively; and the maximal spinal cord dose was 32.81 Gy. Clinical complete response was achieved in 84%. Only 4 patients underwent surgery. The most common grade 3 acute toxicities were esophagitis and fatigue (3 patients). Grade 3 esophageal stricture occurred in 1 patient. With a median follow-up time of 17 months, overall survival was 39.2 months, with 1-year overall survival, locoregional recurrence-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival rates of 100%, 88.8%, and 72.9%, respectively. Locoregional and distant failures occurred in 3 and 5 patients, respectively.

Conclusions

IMPT is an effective treatment for EC, with high tumor response, good local control, and acceptable acute toxicity.

Oesophageal cancer: Which treatment is the easiest to swallow? A review of combined modality treatments for resectable carcinomas

Oesophageal cancer is a relatively uncommon malignancy, but with poor prognosis. Despite several treatment options that are available, the 5-year survival rates rarely exceed 40%. This review discusses the main challenges of oesophageal cancer, the available treatment options, and the most effective treatment in terms of overall survival. The outcomes of clinical trials show that neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy using cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil followed by oesophagectomy results in the greatest survival. However, the optimal chemotherapy and radiotherapy schedule remains unclear. There is no satisfactory treatment to date, particularly for patients with co-morbidities or advanced tumours.

Advances in Radiotherapy Management of Esophageal Cancer

Radiation therapy (RT) as part of multidisciplinary oncologic care has been marked by profound advancements over the past decades. As part of multimodality therapy for esophageal cancer (EC), a prime goal of RT is to minimize not only treatment toxicities, but also postoperative complications and hospitalizations. Herein, discussion commences with the historical approaches to treating EC, including seminal trials supporting multimodality therapy. Subsequently, the impact of RT techniques, including three-dimensional conformal RT, intensity-modulated RT, and proton beam therapy, is examined through available data. We further discuss existing data and the potential for further development in the future, with an appraisal of the future outlook of technological advancements of RT for EC.

Particle Radiation Therapy for Gastrointestinal Cancers

Particle irradiation of cancerous disease has gained great traction in recent years. The ability for particle therapy centers to deliver radiation with a highly conformal dose distribution while maintaining minimal exit or excess dose delivered to normal tissue, coupled with various biological advantages particularly found with heavy-ion beams, enables treatment of diseases inapproachable with conventional radiotherapy. Here, we present a review of the current status of particle therapy with regard to cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, including esophagus, liver, pancreas, and recurrent rectal cancer.