Pragmatic, Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Carbon Ion Therapy, Surgery, and Proton Therapy for the Management of Pelvic Sarcomas (Soft Tissue/Bone) Involving the Bone: The PROSPER Study Rationale and Design

The Use of Proton and Carbon Ion Radiation Therapy for Sarcomas

The unique physical and biological characteristics of proton and carbon ions allow for improved sparing of normal tissues, decreased integral dose to the body, and increased biological effect through high linear energy transfer. These properties are particularly useful for sarcomas given their histology, wide array of locations, and age of diagnosis. This review summarizes the literature and describes the clinical situations in which these heavy particles have advantages for treating sarcomas.

The rationale for a carbon ion radiation therapy facility in Australia

Australia has taken a collaborative nationally networked approach to achieve particle therapy capability. This supports the under-construction proton therapy facility in Adelaide, other potential proton centres and an under-evaluation proposal for a hybrid carbon ion and proton centre in western Sydney. A wide-ranging overview is presented of the rationale for carbon ion radiation therapy, applying observations to the case for an Australian facility and to the clinical and research potential from such a national centre.

Choosing the right questions - A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures used in radiotherapy and proton beam therapy

The implementation of PROMs into clinical practice has been shown to improve quality of care. This systematic review aims to identify which PROMs are suitable for implementation within routine clinical practice in a radiotherapy or PBT service.The bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and EMCARE were searched. Articles published between 1st January 2008 to 1st June 2023, that reported PROMs being utilised as an outcome measure were included. Inclusion criteria also included being written in English, involving human patients, aged 16 and above, receiving external beam radiotherapy or PBT for six defined tumour sites. PROMs identified within the included articles were subjected to quality assessment using the COSMIN reporting guidelines. Results are reported as per PRISMA guidelines. A total of 268 studies were identified in the search, of which 52 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The use of 39 different PROMs was reported. The PROMs identified were mostly tumour or site-specific quality of life (n = 23) measures but also included generic cancer (n = 3), health-related quality-of-life (n = 6), and symptom specific (n = 7) measures.None of the PROMs identified received a high GRADE score for good content. There were 13 PROMs that received a moderate GRADE score. The remaining PROMs either had limited evidence of development and validation within the patient cohorts investigated, or lacked relevance or comprehensiveness needed for routine PROMs collection in a radiotherapy or PBT service.This review highlights that there are a wide variety of PROMs being utilised within radiotherapy research, but most lack specificity to radiotherapy side-effects. There is a risk that by using non-specific PROMs in clinical practice, patients might not receive the supportive care that they need.

An international approach to estimating the indications and number of eligible patients for carbon ion radiation therapy (CIRT) in Australia

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To establish the treatment indications and potential patient numbers for carbon ion radiation therapy (CIRT) at the proposed national carbon ion (and proton) therapy facility in the Westmead precinct, New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

METHODS

An expert panel was convened, including representatives of four operational and two proposed international carbon ion facilities, as well as NSW-based CIRT stakeholders. They met virtually to consider CIRT available evidence and experience. Information regarding Japanese CIRT was provided pre- and post- the virtual meeting. Published information for South Korea was included in discussions.

RESULTS

There was jurisdictional variation in the tumours treated by CIRT due to differing incidences of some tumours, referral patterns, differences in decisions regarding which tumours to prioritise, CIRT resources available and funding arrangements. The greatest level of consensus was reached that CIRT in Australia can be justified currently for patients with adenoid cystic carcinomas and mucosal melanomas of the head and neck, hepatocellular cancer and liver metastases, base of skull meningiomas, chordomas and chondrosarcomas. Almost 1400 Australian patients annually meet the consensus-derived indications now.

CONCLUSION

A conservative estimate is that 1% of cancer patients in Australia (or 2% of patients recommended for radiation therapy) may preferentially benefit from CIRT for initial therapy of radiation resistant tumours, or to boost persistently active disease after other therapies, or for re-irradiation of recurrent disease. On this basis, one national carbon ion facility with up to four treatment rooms is justified for Australian patients.