The Case for Allowing Proton Beam Therapy on Head and Neck Cooperative Group Studies

Neal S. McCall,Steven J. Frank,William A. Stokes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.6274

IF: 33.006

2024-01-11

JAMA Oncology

Abstract:This Viewpoint present the case for revisiting the proscription of proton beam therapy in trials of patients with de novo, nonmetastatic head and neck cancer.

oncology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Proton therapy for head and neck cancer: expanding the therapeutic window

Jonathan E Leeman,Paul B Romesser,Ying Zhou,Sean McBride,Nadeem Riaz,Eric Sherman,Marc A Cohen,Oren Cahlon,Nancy Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30179-1

Abstract:Use of proton beam therapy has expanded, with the number of proton centres rapidly increasing not only in the USA but also worldwide. The physical characteristics of the proton beam offer important advantages versus widely used photon techniques in terms of radiation precision. In head and neck cancer in particular, proton beam therapy is uniquely suited for the complex anatomy of tumours and sensitive surrounding organs. De-intensification and personalisation of treatment to limit toxicity are of renewed importance in the context of human papilloma virus-associated disease, in which young patients will be cured but bear the consequences of adverse effects for decades. Comparisons of radiation dose distributions between photon and proton techniques suggest considerable benefit in terms of toxicity sparing, but this has only recently been confirmed by substantial clinical data. In this Review, we attempt to define the role of this method in the contemporary multidisciplinary management of various types of head and neck cancer.
Impact of Relative Biologic Effectiveness for Proton Therapy for Head and Neck and Skull-Base Tumors: A Technical and Clinical Review

Adam L. Holtzman,Homan Mohammadi,Keith M. Furutani,Daniel M. Koffler,Lisa A. McGee,Scott C. Lester,Mauricio E. Gamez,David M. Routman,Chris J. Beltran,Xiaoying Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16111947

2024-05-22

Cancers

Abstract:Proton therapy has emerged as a crucial tool in the treatment of head and neck and skull-base cancers, offering advantages over photon therapy in terms of decreasing integral dose and reducing acute and late toxicities, such as dysgeusia, feeding tube dependence, xerostomia, secondary malignancies, and neurocognitive dysfunction. Despite its benefits in dose distribution and biological effectiveness, the application of proton therapy is challenged by uncertainties in its relative biological effectiveness (RBE). Overcoming the challenges related to RBE is key to fully realizing proton therapy's potential, which extends beyond its physical dosimetric properties when compared with photon-based therapies. In this paper, we discuss the clinical significance of RBE within treatment volumes and adjacent serial organs at risk in the management of head and neck and skull-base tumors. We review proton RBE uncertainties and its modeling and explore clinical outcomes. Additionally, we highlight technological advancements and innovations in plan optimization and treatment delivery, including linear energy transfer/RBE optimizations and the development of spot-scanning proton arc therapy. These advancements show promise in harnessing the full capabilities of proton therapy from an academic standpoint, further technological innovations and clinical outcome studies, however, are needed for their integration into routine clinical practice.

oncology
Proton Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer Treatment: State of the Problem and Development Prospects (Review)

K.B. Gordon,D.I. Smyk,I.A. Gulidov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17691/stm2021.13.4.08

2021-08-01

Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine

Abstract:Proton therapy (PT) due to dosimetric characteristics (Bragg peak formation, sharp dose slowdown) is currently one of the most high-tech techniques of radiation therapy exceeding the standards of photon methods. In recent decades, PT has traditionally been used, primarily, for head and neck cancers (HNC) including skull base tumors. Regardless of the fact that recently PT application area has significantly expanded, HNC still remain a leading indication for proton radiation since PT's physic-dosimetric and radiobiological advantages enable to achieve the best treatment results in these tumors. The present review is devoted to PT usage in HNC treatment in the world and Russian medicine, the prospects for further technique development, the assessment of PT's radiobiological features, a physical and dosimetric comparison of protons photons distribution. The paper shows PT's capabilities in the treatment of skull base tumors, HNC (nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses, nasopharynx, oropharynx, and laryngopharynx, etc.), eye tumors, sialomas. The authors analyze the studies on repeated radiation and provide recent experimental data on favorable profile of proton radiation compared to the conventional radiation therapy. The review enables to conclude that currently PT is a dynamic radiation technique opening up new opportunities for improving therapy of oncology patients, especially those with HNC.
Current Status and Future Directions of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Carcinoma

Sara Lillo,Alfredo Mirandola,Alessandro Vai,Anna Maria Camarda,Sara Ronchi,Maria Bonora,Rossana Ingargiola,Barbara Vischioni,Ester Orlandi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16112085

2024-05-31

Cancers

Abstract:The growing interest in proton therapy (PT) in recent decades is justified by the evidence that protons dose distribution allows maximal dose release at the tumor depth followed by sharp distal dose fall-off. But, in the holistic management of head and neck cancer (HNC), limiting the potential of PT to a mere dosimetric advantage appears reductive. Indeed, the precise targeting of PT may help evaluate the effectiveness of de-escalation strategies, especially for patients with human papillomavirus associated-oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) and nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). Furthermore, PT could have potentially greater immunogenic effects than conventional photon therapy, possibly enhancing both the radiotherapy (RT) capability to activate anti-tumor immune response and the effectiveness of immunotherapy drugs. Based on these premises, the aim of the present paper is to conduct a narrative review reporting the safety and efficacy of PT compared to photon RT focusing on NPC and OPC. We also provide a snapshot of ongoing clinical trials comparing PT with photon RT for these two clinical scenarios. Finally, we discuss new insights that may further develop clinical research on PT for HNC.

oncology
Proton Beam Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Malignancies

Steven J. Frank,Ugur Selek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-010-0089-0

2010-03-30

Current Oncology Reports

Abstract:Proton beam radiation therapy (PBRT) has unique physical properties (e.g., Bragg Peak) that limit the amount of normal tissue irradiated in the head and neck region while maximizing the radiation delivered to the tumor. Radiation therapy is commonly used in both the primary and adjuvant setting for many head and neck malignancies. Limiting the unnecessary radiation to normal tissues within the head and neck region can result in a profound improvement in quality of life during and after treatment. Although PBRT was initially developed in the 1950s, recent technological advances have permitted the development of hospital-based facilities for proton delivery. PBRT has been shown to improve outcomes for patients with sinonasal tumors, chordomas, chondrosarcomas, ocular, and periocular malignancies. Further development of intensity-modulated proton therapy will permit comprehensive treatment for head and neck tumors.

oncology
Proton Therapy for Spinal Tumors: A Consensus Statement From the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group

Arpit M Chhabra,James W Snider,Adam J Kole,Markus Stock,Adam L Holtzman,Robert Press,C Jake Wang,Heng Li,Haibo Lin,Chengyu Shi,Mark McDonald,Michael Soike,Jun Zhou,Pouya Sabouri,Sina Mossahebi,Rovel Colaco,Francesca Albertini,Charles B Simone II,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.04.007

2024-11-15

Abstract:Purpose: Proton beam therapy (PBT) plays an important role in the management of primary spine tumors. The purpose of this consensus statement was to summarize safe and optimal delivery of PBT for spinal tumors. Methods and materials: The Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Skull Base/Central nervous system/Sarcoma Subcommittee consisting of radiation oncologists and medical physicists with specific expertise in spinal irradiation developed expert recommendations discussing treatment planning considerations and current approaches in the treatment of primary spinal tumors. Results: Computed tomography simulation: factors that require significant consideration include (1) patient comfort, (2) setup reproducibility and stability, and (3) accessibility of appropriate beam angles. Spine stabilization hardware: If present, hardware should be placed with cross-links well above/below the level of the primary tumor to reduce the metal burden at the level of the tumor bed. New materials that can reduce uncertainties include polyether-ether-ketone and composite polyether-ether-ketone-carbon fiber implants. Field arrangement: Appropriate beam selection is required to ensure robust target coverage and organ at risk sparing. Commonly, 2 to 4 treatment fields, typically from posterior and/or posterior-oblique directions, are used. Treatment planning methodology: Robust optimization is recommended for all pencil beam scanning plans (the preferred treatment modality) and should consider setup uncertainty (between 3 and 7 mm) and range uncertainty (3%-3.5%). In the presence of metal hardware, use of an increased range uncertainty up to 5% is recommended. Conclusions: The Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Skull Base/Central nervous system/Sarcoma Subcommittee has developed recommendations to enable centers to deliver PBT safely and effectively for the management of primary spinal tumors.
Proton versus photon-based radiation therapy for prostate cancer: emerging evidence and considerations in the era of value-based cancer care

Sophia C. Kamran,Jay O. Light,Jason A. Efstathiou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0140-7

2019-04-09

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases

Abstract:BackgroundAdvances in radiation technology have transformed treatment options for patients with localized prostate cancer. The evolution of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have allowed physicians to spare surrounding normal organs and reduce adverse effects. The introduction of proton beam technology and its physical advantage of depositing its energy in tissue at the end-of-range maximum may potentially spare critical organs such as the bladder and rectum in prostate cancer patients. Data thus far are limited to large, observational studies that have not yet demonstrated a definite benefit of protons over conventional treatment with IMRT. The cost of proton beam treatment adds to the controversy within the field.MethodsWe performed an extensive literature review for all proton treatment-related prostate cancer studies. We discuss the history of proton beam technology, as well as its role in the treatment of prostate cancer, associated controversies, novel technology trends, a discussion of cost-effectiveness, and an overview of the ongoing modern large prospective studies that aim to resolve the debate between protons and photons for prostate cancer.ResultsPresent data have demonstrated that proton beam therapy is safe and effective compared with the standard treatment options for prostate cancer. While dosimetric studies suggest lower whole-body radiation dose and a theoretically higher relative biological effectiveness in prostate cancer compared with photons, no studies have demonstrated a clear benefit with protons.ConclusionsEvolving trends in proton treatment delivery and proton center business models are helping to reduce costs. Introduction of existing technology into proton delivery allows further control of organ motion and addressing organs-at-risk. Finally, the much-awaited contemporary studies comparing photon with proton-based treatments, with primary endpoints of patient-reported quality-of-life, will help us understand the differences between proton and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era.

oncology,urology & nephrology
Outcomes and Genomic Landscape of Patients Treated with Re-Irradiation for Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer Using Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy: The Maryland Proton Treatment Center Experience

R.F. Krc,W. Mendes,J.K. Molitoris,M. Ferris,Y. Song,A.C. Shetty,R. Mehra,J. Papadimitriou,K. Hatten,R. Taylor,J. Wolf,K. Sun,S.M. Bentzen,W.F. Regine,P.T. Tran,M.E. Witek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.086

IF: 8.013

2024-04-01

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

Abstract:Purpose/Objective(s) Re-irradiation (re-RT) for recurrent head and neck cancer (rHNC) after prior HNC RT is clinically challenging given prior radiation of nearby organs at risk (OARs). We describe clinical outcomes and toxicity of pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBS-PT) for recurrent HNC, and report genomic alterations associated with patterns of failure to improve clinical decision making. Materials/Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of rHNC patients treated at a single institution with PBS-PT. Baseline demographic, disease and treatment characteristics were recorded. Clinical outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariable (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) were performed to assess patient, disease, and treatment related factors. Acute and late grade 3+ toxicities were assessed per CTCAE v5.0. Next generation sequencing (NGS) and genomic analyses were performed on available samples. Results Eighty-nine patients treated with PBS-PT for rHNC between 2016 and 2022 with a median follow-up of 12 months (range 0-71) were included. The 1- and 2-year local control rates were 80.8% (95% CI: 70.8-90.8) and 66.2% (95% CI: 50.7-81.7) and 1- and 2-year distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) were 41.0% (95% CI: 30.0-52.0) and 26.3% (95% CI: 15.7-36.9). Median overall survival (OS) was 13 months (95% CI: 9.3-16.7). On UVA and MVA, smaller gross tumor volume was associated with improved OS (HR 1.002, p=.004), DMFS (HR 1.002, p=0.004) and progression free survival (PFS) (HR 1.002, p=0.014). There were 35 late grade 3 or higher toxicity events (30.3%), including one patient that suffered late grade 5 osteoradionecrosis resulting in sepsis. Patients with higher candidate gene specific mutation burden (genes with odds-ratio >2, p<0.05) had inferior PFS. In addition, TP53, NOTCH4 and ARID1B mutations were associated with inferior DMFS (OR>2, p<0.05). Of the top 28 highly mutated genes (mutated in ≥ 3 samples in either group, odd ratio>2), TP53 was the most frequently mutated gene in DMFS alive group with Met(78%), followed by NOTCH4(52%), ARID1B (33%). please see table table1b. Conclusion Pencil beam scanning proton therapy re-irradiation is effective at achieving local control for recurrent head and neck cancer and is associated with a favorable toxicity profile. Distant metastases comprise the major failure pattern for this patient population and are associated with TP53, NOTCH4, and ARID1B somatic mutations. Validation of these findings may provide rationale for the inclusion of genomic alterations in the clinical decision process.

oncology,radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
[Current situation and perspectives of proton therapy]

J Doyen,P-Y Bondiau,K Bénézéry,M-È Chand,J Thariat,A Leysalle,J-P Gérard,J-L Habrand,J-M Hannoun-Lévi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canrad.2014.12.010

Abstract:Proton beam therapy is indicated as a treatment for some rare tumours and paediatric tumours because the technique allows a good local control with minimal toxicity; the growing number of centres that use proton beam therapy is associated with an increase of dosimetric and clinical data for other malignant tumours as well. This paper reviews potential indications of proton beam therapy. A systematic review on Medline was performed with the following keywords proton beam therapy, cancer, heavy particle, charged particle. No phase III trial has been published using proton beam therapy in comparison with the best photon therapy, but numerous retrospective and dosimetric studies have revealed an advantage of proton beam therapy compared to photons, above all in tumours next to parallel organs at risk (thoracic and abdominal tumours). This could be accompanied with a better safety profile and/or a better tumoural control; numerous phase 0, I, II, III and IV studies are ongoing to examine these hypotheses in more common cancers. Use of proton beam therapy is growing for common cancers within clinical trials but some indications could be applied sooner since in silico analysis showed major advantages with this technique.
Proton Beam Reirradiation for Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer: Multi-institutional Report on Feasibility and Early Outcomes

Paul B Romesser,Oren Cahlon,Eli D Scher,Eugen B Hug,Kevin Sine,Carl DeSelm,Jana L Fox,Dennis Mah,Madhur K Garg,John Han-Chih Chang,Nancy Y Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.036

2016-05-01

Abstract:Purpose: Reirradiation therapy (re-RT) is the only potentially curative treatment option for patients with locally recurrent head and neck cancer (HNC). Given the significant morbidity with head and neck re-RT, interest in proton beam radiation therapy (PBRT) has increased. We report the first multi-institutional clinical experience using curative-intent PBRT for re-RT in recurrent HNC. Methods and materials: A retrospective analysis of ongoing prospective data registries from 2 hybrid community practice and academic proton centers was conducted. Patients with recurrent HNC who underwent at least 1 prior course of definitive-intent external beam radiation therapy (RT) were included. Acute and late toxicities were assessed with the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group late radiation morbidity scoring system, respectively. The cumulative incidence of locoregional failure was calculated with death as a competing risk. The actuarial 12-month freedom-from-distant metastasis and overall survival rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Ninety-two consecutive patients were treated with curative-intent re-RT with PBRT between 2011 and 2014. Median follow-up among surviving patients was 13.3 months and among all patients was 10.4 months. The median time between last RT and PBRT was 34.4 months. There were 76 patients with 1 prior RT course and 16 with 2 or more courses. The median PBRT dose was 60.6 Gy (relative biological effectiveness, [RBE]). Eighty-five percent of patients underwent prior HNC RT for an oropharynx primary, and 39% underwent salvage surgery before re-RT. The cumulative incidence of locoregional failure at 12 months, with death as a competing risk, was 25.1%. The actuarial 12-month freedom-from-distant metastasis and overall survival rates were 84.0% and 65.2%, respectively. Acute toxicities of grade 3 or greater included mucositis (9.9%), dysphagia (9.1%), esophagitis (9.1%), and dermatitis (3.3%). There was 1 death during PBRT due to disease progression. Grade 3 or greater late skin and dysphagia toxicities were noted in 6 patients (8.7%) and 4 patients (7.1%), respectively. Two patients had grade 5 toxicity due to treatment-related bleeding. Conclusions: Proton beam re-RT of the head and neck can provide effective tumor control with acceptable acute and late toxicity profiles likely because of the decreased dose to the surrounding normal, albeit previously irradiated, tissue, although longer follow-up is needed to confirm these findings.
Efficacy and safety of proton therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of head and neck tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Srivatsa Surya Vasudevan,Haya Deeb,Anuhya Katta,Lindsay Olinde,John Pang,Ameya A Asarkar,Sanford Katz,Cherie-Ann O Nathan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.27877

2024-07-15

Abstract:To comprehensively evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and safety when utilizing proton therapy (PT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in head and neck cancer patients. Pubmed, ScienceDirect, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies on comparative PT and IMRT outcomes. We performed a random effect model meta-analysis to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) for efficacy and safety outcome variables between PT and IMRT. From 641 identified articles, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 3087 patients (606 treated with PT and 2481 with IMRT). On toxicity analysis, PT is associated with decreased acute grade 1 nausea (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13-0.84, p = 0.02) compared to IMRT. In grade 2 toxicity, PT showed significant advantages over IMRT in mucositis (OR = 0.44, p < 0.0001), dysgeusia (OR = 0.35, p = 0.02), dysphagia (OR = 0.36, p < 0.0001), fatigue (OR = 0.29, p = 0.001), pain (OR = 0.34, p = 0.01), and weight loss (OR = 0.54, p = 0.02). Proton therapy also exhibited increased safety in grade 3 dysphagia incidence (OR = 0.44, p < 0.0001) compared to IMRT. PT demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) compared to IMRT across multiple time points: 1-year OS (HR = 0.43, p = 0.02), 2-year OS (HR = 0.44, p < 0.0001), and 5-year OS (HR = 0.78, p = 0.004). In terms of disease-free survival (DFS), PT also showed improved outcomes at 2-year DFS (HR = 0.65, p = 0.03) and 5-year DFS (HR = 0.81, p = 0.03). Proton therapy demonstrated superior overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and better local control rate (LCR) compared to IMRT. The data also showed better safety outcomes in PT patients, particularly when involving grade 2 acute toxicity events.
Proton beams in cancer treatments: Clinical outcomes and dosimetric comparisons with photon therapy

Jérôme Doyen,Alexander Tuan Falk,Vincent Floquet,Joël Hérault,Jean-Michel Hannoun-Lévi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.12.007

Abstract:Purpose: To review current evidence of the role of proton therapy (PT) in other tumors than skull base, sinusal/parasinusal, spinal and pediatric tumors; to determine medico-economic aspects raised by PT. Material and methods: A systematic review on Medline was performed with the following keywords: proton therapy, proton beam, protontherapy, cancer; publications with comparison between PT and photon-therapy were also selected. Results: In silico studies have shown superiority (better dose delivery to the target and/or to organs at risk) of PT toward photon-therapy in most of thoracic and abdominal malignant tumors. Potential benefits of PT could be: reduction of toxicities (including radiation-induced cancer), increase of tumor control through a dose-escalation approach, hypofractionation. Cost of treatment is always cited as an issue which actually can be managed by a precise patient selection making PT a cost-effective procedure. Comparison plan with photon therapy may be useful to determine the dosimetric and clinical advantages of PT (Normal Tissue Complications Probability). Conclusion: PT may be associated with a great advantage compared to the best photon-therapies in various types of cancers. Accumulation of clinical data is on-going and will challenge the in silico data analysis. Some indications are associated with strong superiority of PT and may be discussed as a new standard within prospective observational studies.
Proton Therapy in The Treatment of Head And Neck Cancers- Review

Kamila Bała,Yana Samovich,Karolina Dorobisz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-024-01592-9

Abstract:Purpose of review: Head and neck cancers rank as the seventh most common cancer worldwide, nearly half of which result in death. The most common treatment methods for head and neck cancers include radiotherapy and surgery. Proton therapy has emerged in radiotherapy for cases where tumors are located near anatomically sensitive areas where the radiation dose must be strictly limited. The purpose of the work is to discuss the role of the proton therapy in the treatment in various types of cancer, and particularly head and neck tumors. Recent findings: Proton therapy allows for the delivery of radiation doses to critical organs to be reduced, resulting in a decrease in the occurrence of late adverse effects on these organs. The occurrence of side effects caused by proton therapy depends on the relative and absolute volume of organs at risk receiving specific radiation doses. Proton therapy represents a promising alternative to conventional radiotherapy due to the reduced number of complications in healthy tissues by delivering a lower radiation dose outside the tumor area.
Anti-PD-(L)1-Based Neoadjuvant Therapy in Head and Neck Carcinoma: a Meta-analysis of Prospective Clinical Trials.

Yaner Yu,Haiyan Chen,Zhifei Huang,Zhijun Yuan,Lihong Liu,Jian Zhao,Qichun Wei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ohn.867

2024-01-01

Abstract:Objective. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiprogressive disease (PD)-(L)1-based neoadjuvant therapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients and identify potential prognostic biomarkers. Data Sources. Databases were systematically searched for prospective clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD-(L)1-based neoadjuvant therapy for HNSCC before January 12, 2024. Review Methods. We estimated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were further performed. Results. A total of 570 patients from 20 studies were included. The pooled major pathological response (MPR), pathological complete response (pCR), and partial pathological response (PPR) rates were 30.7%, 15.3%, and 68.2%, respectively. Surgical complications, surgical delayed rate, all grade treatment-related adverse effects (TRAEs) and >= Grade 3 TRAEs were 0.6%, 0.3%, 82.6%, and 9.7%, respectively. Best MPR or pCR rate was detected in patients receiving neoadjuvant anti-PD-(L)1 therapy + radiotherapy (with MPR rate of 75.5% and pCR rate of 51.1%) and neoadjuvant anti-PD-(L)1 therapy + chemotherapy groups (with MPR rate of 57.5% and pCR rate of 26.7%). No differences were detected in subgroups stratified by neoadjuvant treatment cycles, human papillomavirus (HPV) status, and tumor location. Patients with baseline Combined Positive Score (CPS) >= 20 have higher MPR and pCR rates compared to patients with CPS < 20. High Tumor Cell Proportion Score was also associated with MPR and pCR. Objective response rate is a strong predictor of MPR (odds ratio [OR] = 7.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.20%-18.91%) and pCR (OR = 3.24, 95% CI = 1.40%-7.48%). Conclusion. Anti-PD-(L)1-based neoadjuvant therapy was effective and safe for HNSCC patients.
A Systematic Review of Proton Therapy for the Management of Nasopharyngeal Cancer

Anna Lee,Sarin Kitpanit,Marina Chilov,Johannes A Langendijk,Jiade Lu,Nancy Y Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-20-00082.1

2021-06-25

Abstract:Purpose: With improved technology, more patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) are receiving definitive treatment with proton therapy, which allows greater sparing of dose to normal tissues without compromising efficacy. As there is no randomized data, the purpose of this study was to systematically review the available literature on proton therapy in this setting, focusing on the toxicity endpoints. Materials and methods: A systematic search using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was conducted in 5 databases: PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A total of 491 studies were found on the topic of NPC and proton therapy. Following independent study selection by 2 investigators, 9 studies were found to have sufficient focus and relevance to be incorporated into the systematic review. Results: All 9 studies were retrospective and examined only NPC patients except for one that also included paranasal sinus cancer. One study was a reirradiation study. Four studies used 3D or double scatter technique, while all others used intensity-modulated proton therapy. Oncologic outcomes were similar to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rates, with 2-year local and regional progression-free survival (LRFS) ranging from 84% to 100%, 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) ranging from 75% to 88.9%, and 2-year overall survival (OS) ranging from 88% to 95% in the up-front setting. Four comparison studies with IMRT found significantly lower feeding tube rates (20% versus 65%, P = .015; and 14% versus 85%, P < .001) with proton therapy as well as lower mucositis (G2 46% versus 70%, P = .019; and G3 11% versus 76%, P = .0002). All other acute and late effects were largely improved with proton therapy but not statistically significant. Conclusions: NPC patients receiving proton therapy maintain good outcomes with improved toxicity profile, likely due to sparing of dose to normal structures. Prospective studies are ongoing to better quantify the magnitude.
Enabling Clinical Use of Linear Energy Transfer in Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer -- A Review of Implications for Treatment Planning and Adverse Events Study

Jingyuan Chen,Yunze Yang,Hongying Feng,Chenbin Liu,Lian Zhang,Jason M. Holmes,Zhengliang Liu,Haibo Lin,Tianming Liu,Charles B. Simone II,Nancy Y. Lee,Steven E. Frank,Daniel J. Ma,Samir H. Patel,Wei Liu

2024-10-06

Abstract:Proton therapy offers significant advantages due to its unique physical and biological properties, particularly the Bragg peak, enabling precise dose delivery to tumors while sparing healthy tissues. However, the clinical implementation is challenged by the oversimplification of the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) as a fixed value of 1.1, which does not account for the complex interplay between dose, linear energy transfer (LET), and biological endpoints. Lack of heterogeneity control or the understanding of the complex interplay may result in unexpected adverse events and suboptimal patient outcomes. On the other hand, expanding our knowledge of variable tumor RBE and LET optimization may provide a better management strategy for radioresistant tumors. This review examines recent advancements in LET calculation methods, including analytical models and Monte Carlo simulations. The integration of LET into plan evaluation is assessed to enhance plan quality control. LET-guided robust optimization demonstrates promise in minimizing high-LET exposure to organs at risk, thereby reducing the risk of adverse events. Dosimetric seed spot analysis is discussed to show its importance in revealing the true LET-related effect upon the adverse event initialization by finding the lesion origins and eliminating the confounding factors from the biological processes. Dose-LET volume histograms (DLVH) are discussed as effective tools for correlating physical dose and LET with clinical outcomes, enabling the derivation of clinically relevant dose-LET volume constraints without reliance on uncertain RBE models. Based on DLVH, the dose-LET volume constraints (DLVC)-guided robust optimization is introduced to upgrade conventional dose-volume constraints-based robust optimization, which optimizes the joint distribution of dose and LET simultaneously.

Medical Physics
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Proton Beam Therapy Compared to Conventional Radiotherapy in Non-Metastatic Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes

Kelvin Le,James Norton Marchant,Khang Duy Ricky Le

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60091426

2024-08-31

Abstract:Background and Objectives: Conventional radiotherapies used in the current management of rectal cancer commonly cause iatrogenic radiotoxicity. Proton beam therapy has emerged as an alternative to conventional radiotherapy with the aim of improving tumour control and reducing off-set radiation exposure to surrounding tissue. However, the real-world treatment and oncological outcomes associated with the use of proton beam therapy in rectal cancer remain poorly characterised. This systematic review seeks to evaluate the radiation dosages and safety of proton beam therapy compared to conventional radiotherapy in patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer. Materials and Methods: A computer-assisted search was performed on the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central databases. Studies that evaluated the adverse effects and oncological outcomes of proton beam therapy and conventional radiotherapy in adult patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer were included. Results: Eight studies were included in this review. There was insufficient evidence to determine the adverse treatment outcomes of proton beam therapy versus conventional radiotherapy. No current studies assessed radiotoxicities nor oncological outcomes. Pooled dosimetric comparisons between proton beam therapy and various conventional radiotherapies were associated with reduced radiation exposure to the pelvis, bowel and bladder. Conclusions: This systematic review demonstrates a significant paucity of evidence in the current literature surrounding adverse effects and oncological outcomes related to proton beam therapy compared to conventional radiotherapy for non-metastatic rectal cancer. Pooled analyses of dosimetric studies highlight greater predicted radiation-sparing effects with proton beam therapy in this setting. This evidence, however, is based on evidence at a moderate risk of bias and clinical heterogeneity. Overall, more robust, prospective clinical trials are required.
A Prospective Phase I/II Clinical Trial of High-Dose Proton Therapy for Chordomas and Chondrosarcomas

Sana S Dastgheyb,Alexandra D Dreyfuss,Michael J LaRiviere,Jahan J Mohiuddin,Brian C Baumann,Jacob Shabason,Robert A Lustig,Jay F Dorsey,Alexander Lin,Sean M Grady,Bert W O'Malley,John Y K Lee,Jason G Newman,James M Schuster,Michelle Alonso-Basanta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2024.101456

2024-02-08

Abstract:Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of dose-escalated proton beam therapy for treating chordomas and chondrosarcomas of the skull base and spine. Methods: A prospective cohort of 54 patients (42 with chordomas and 12 with chondrosarcomas) was enrolled between 2010 and 2018. The primary endpoints were feasibility and <20% rate of acute grade ≥3 toxicity, and secondary endpoints included cancer-specific outcomes and toxicities. Patients were followed with magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography at 3-month intervals. Proton beam therapy was delivered with doses up to 79.2 Gy using protons only, combination protons/intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or IMRT only. Results: Feasibility endpoints were met, with only 2 out of 54 patient radiation therapy plans failing to meet dosimetric constraints with protons, and 4 out of 54 experiencing a delay or treatment break >5 days, none for toxicities related to treatment. There were no grade 4 acute toxicities and 1 grade 3 acute toxicity (sensory neuropathy). The only 2 grade 3 late toxicities recorded, osteoradionecrosis and intranasal carotid blowout (mild and not emergently treated), occurred in a single patient. We report overall survival as 83% at 5 years, with local failure-free survival and progression-free survival rates of 72% and 68%, respectively. Five patients developed distant disease, and among the 9/54 patients who died, 4 deaths were not attributed to treatment or recurrence. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that high-dose proton therapy alone or in combination with IMRT is a safe and effective treatment option for chordomas and chondrosarcomas of the skull base and spine.
Dosimetric evaluation of intensity modulated photon versus proton reirradiation of head and neck cancer

Nikolett Buciuman,Alexandru Dasu,Loredana G Marcu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103427

Abstract:Background: Reirradiation of head and neck cancer (HNC) became more accessible in the last decade, owing to modern irradiation techniques which offer a reduction in treatment related toxicities. The aim of this paper was to comparatively evaluate the dosimetric aspects derived from intensity modulated photon vs. proton treatment planning in reirradiated HNC patients. Methods: Six recurrent HNC patients were enrolled in this retrospective study. For each patient two treatment plans were created: one IMRT/VMAT and one IMPT plan. The prescribed dose for the second irradiation was between 50 and 70 Gy RBE. The study comparatively analyzed the CTV coverage, doses to organs at risk (OARs) and low doses received by the healthy tissue (other than OAR). Results: Similar CTV coverage was achieved for photon vs proton plans, with the latter presenting better homogeneity in four cases. Maximum dose to CTV was generally higher for photon plans, with differences ranging from 0.3 to 1.9%. For parotid glands and body, the mean dose was lower for proton plans. A notable reduction of low dose to healthy tissue (other than OARs) could be achieved with protons, with an average of 60% and 64% for D10% and Dmean, respectively. Conclusion: The dosimetric comparison between photon and proton reirradiation of HNC showed a great need for treatment individualization, concluding that protons should be considered for reirradiation on an individual basis.
Evolving Role of Proton Radiation Therapy in Clinical Practice

Thomas P Howard,Shearwood McClelland,Rachel B Jimenez,Thomas P. Howard,Rachel B. Jimenez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.23.00674

2024-02-20

JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract:With the expansion of proton radiation therapy centers across the United States and a gradually expanding body of academic evidence supporting its use, more patients are receiving—and asking about—proton therapy than ever before. Here, we outline, for nonradiation oncologists, the theoretical benefits of proton therapy, the clinical evidence to date, the controversies affecting utilization, and the numerous randomized trials currently in progress. We also discuss the challenges of researching and delivering proton therapy, including the cost of constructing and maintaining centers, barriers with insurance approval, clinical situations in which proton therapy may be approached with caution, and the issue of equitable access for all patients. The purpose of this review is to assist practicing oncologists in understanding the evolving role of proton therapy and to help nonradiation oncologists guide patients regarding this technology.

oncology

The Case for Allowing Proton Beam Therapy on Head and Neck Cooperative Group Studies

Proton therapy for head and neck cancer: expanding the therapeutic window

Impact of Relative Biologic Effectiveness for Proton Therapy for Head and Neck and Skull-Base Tumors: A Technical and Clinical Review

Proton Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer Treatment: State of the Problem and Development Prospects (Review)

Current Status and Future Directions of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Carcinoma

Proton Beam Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Malignancies

Proton Therapy for Spinal Tumors: A Consensus Statement From the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group

Proton versus photon-based radiation therapy for prostate cancer: emerging evidence and considerations in the era of value-based cancer care

Outcomes and Genomic Landscape of Patients Treated with Re-Irradiation for Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer Using Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy: The Maryland Proton Treatment Center Experience

[Current situation and perspectives of proton therapy]

Proton Beam Reirradiation for Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer: Multi-institutional Report on Feasibility and Early Outcomes

Efficacy and safety of proton therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of head and neck tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Proton beams in cancer treatments: Clinical outcomes and dosimetric comparisons with photon therapy

Proton Therapy in The Treatment of Head And Neck Cancers- Review

Anti-PD-(L)1-Based Neoadjuvant Therapy in Head and Neck Carcinoma: a Meta-analysis of Prospective Clinical Trials.

A Systematic Review of Proton Therapy for the Management of Nasopharyngeal Cancer

Enabling Clinical Use of Linear Energy Transfer in Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer -- A Review of Implications for Treatment Planning and Adverse Events Study

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Proton Beam Therapy Compared to Conventional Radiotherapy in Non-Metastatic Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes

A Prospective Phase I/II Clinical Trial of High-Dose Proton Therapy for Chordomas and Chondrosarcomas

Dosimetric evaluation of intensity modulated photon versus proton reirradiation of head and neck cancer

Evolving Role of Proton Radiation Therapy in Clinical Practice