Photon Versus Proton Beam Therapy for T1-3 Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Thoracic Esophagus Without Lymph Node Metastasis

Cost-utility analysis of proton beam therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer in Japan

PURPOSE

Proton beam therapy (PBT) has recently been included in Japan's health insurance benefit package for certain cancer types. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of PBT as a replacement for conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC) that is not covered by social insurance.

METHODS

We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PBT as a replacement for 3D-CRT, using clinical evidence from the literature and expert opinions. We used an economic model, decision tree, and Markov model to illustrate the courses followed by patients with LAEC. Effectiveness was estimated as quality-adjusted life years (QALY) using utility weights for the health state. Social insurance fees were calculated as costs. We assumed two base cases depending on the two existing levels of fees for PBT in social insurance: 2,735,000 Japanese yen (US$20,652) or 1,600,000 yen (US$13,913). The stability of the ICER against these assumptions was appraised using sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The effectiveness of PBT and 3D-CRT was 2.62 and 2.51 QALY, respectively. The estimated ICER was 14,025,268 yen (US$121,958) per QALY for the higher fee level and 7,026,402 yen (US$61,099) for the lower fee level. According to the Japanese threshold for cost-effectiveness of anticancer therapy of 7,500,000 yen (US$65,217) per QALY gain, the inclusion of PBT for LAEC in the benefit package of social insurance is cost-effective if a lower fee is applied.

CONCLUSION

PBT is a cost-effective alternative to 3D-CRT for LAEC and making it available to patients under social insurance could be justifiable.

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 versus photon radiation therapy: A clinical review

While proton radiation therapy offers substantially better dose distribution characteristics than photon radiation therapy in certain clinical applications, data demonstrating a quantifiable clinical advantage is still needed for many treatment sites. Unfortunately, the number of patients treated with proton radiation therapy is still comparatively small, in some part due to the lack of evidence of clear benefits over lower-cost photon-based treatments. This review is designed to present the comparative clinical outcomes between proton and photon therapies, and to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding the effectiveness of proton radiation therapy.

Dosimetric analysis and biological evaluation between proton radiotherapy and photon radiotherapy for the long target of total esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Objective

The purpose of this study is to compare the dosimetric and biological evaluation differences between photon and proton radiation therapy.

Methods

Thirty esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients were generated for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning to compare with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning. According to dose–volume histogram (DVH), dose–volume parameters of the plan target volume (PTV) and homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and gradient index (GI) were used to analyze the differences between the various plans. For the organs at risk (OARS), dosimetric parameters were compared. Tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) was also used to evaluate the biological effectiveness of different plannings.

Results

CI, HI, and GI of IMPT planning were significantly superior in the three types of planning (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). Compared to IMRT and VMAT planning, IMPT planning improved the TCP (p<0.001, p<0.001, respectively). As for OARs, IMPT reduced the bilateral lung and heart accepted irradiation dose and volume. The dosimetric parameters, such as mean lung dose (MLD), mean heart dose (MHD), V₅, V₁₀, and V₂₀, were significantly lower than IMRT or VMAT. IMPT afforded a lower maximum dose (D_max) of the spinal cord than the other two-photon plans. What’s more, the radiation pneumonia of the left lung, which was caused by IMPT, was lower than IMRT and VMAT. IMPT achieved the pericarditis probability of heart is only 1.73% ± 0.24%. For spinal cord myelitis necrosis, there was no significant difference between the three different technologies.

Conclusion

Proton radiotherapy is an effective technology to relieve esophageal cancer, which could improve the TCP and spare the heart, lungs, and spinal cord. Our study provides a prediction of radiotherapy outcomes and further guides the individual treatment.

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.

A Comparative Analysis of Photon versus Proton Beam Therapy in Neoadjuvant Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Intrathoracic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus at a Single Institute

BACKGROUND

Proton beam therapy (PBT), as a neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) modality, is expected to result in better outcomes than photon-based radiotherapy (RT) for esophageal cancer, particularly adenocarcinoma. This study reports the results of nCRT for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) using both modalities.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who underwent nCRT for ESCC between 2001 and 2020. A median of 41.4 Gy or cobalt gray equivalents of radiation was delivered using either photons or protons, with concurrent chemotherapy. Dosimetric and clinical parameters were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of the 31 patients, the lungs and heart of the proton group (n = 15) were exposed to significantly less radiation compared to the photon group (n = 16). No significant differences in short-term postoperative outcomes or lymphocyte count were observed between the groups, and there were no significant differences between the photon and proton groups in 2-year overall survival (67.8% vs. 68.6%, p = 0.867) or 2-year disease-free survival (33.3% vs. 34.5%, p = 0.749), with a median follow-up of 17 months.

CONCLUSIONS

PBT provided a significant dosimetric benefit over photon-based RT during nCRT for ESCC; however, it did not improve clinical outcomes.