Search

Background: Proton therapy (PT) has unique biologic properties with excellent clinical outcomes for the management of localized prostate cancer. Here, we aim to characterize the toxicity of PT for patients with localized prostate cancer and propose mitigation strategies using a large institutional database., Methods: We reviewed medical records of 2772 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive PT between May 2006 through January 2020. Disease risk was stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as low [LR, n = 640]; favorable-intermediate [F-IR, n = 849]; unfavorable-intermediate [U-IR, n = 851]; high [HR, n = 315]; or very high [VHR, n = 117]. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier estimates assessed toxicity and freedom from biochemical relapse (FFBR)., Results: Median follow-up was 7.0 years. The median dose was 78 Gy(RBE)(range: 72-79.2 Gy) in 2.0 Gy(RBE) fractions; 63 % of patients received 78 Gy(RBE) in 39 fractions, and 29 % received 76 Gy(RBE) in 38 fractions. Overall rates of late grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicity were 0.87 % and 1.01 %, respectively. Two patients developed grade 4 late GU toxicity and seven patients with grade 4 late GI toxicity. All patients experiencing severe late grade 4 toxicities were treated to 78 Gy(RBE) in 39 fractions with 80 Gy(RBE) dose to the anterior rectal wall and/or bladder neck. The 10-year FFBR rates for patients with LR to U-IR disease were compared between those treated with 76 and 78 Gy(RBE); the rates were 94.5 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 92.4-96.0 %) and 93.2 % (95 % CI 91.3-95.7 %), respectively (log-rank p = 0.22)., Conclusions: Proton therapy is associated with low rates of late grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicity. While rare, late grade 4 toxicities occurred in nine (0.3 %) patients. De-escalation to a total dose of 76 Gy(RBE) yields excellent clinical outcomes for patients with LR to U-IR disease with the potential for significant reductions in grade ≥3 late toxicity., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology.)

Purpose: Our purpose was to develop a clinically intuitive and easily understandable scoring method using statistical metrics to visually determine the quality of a radiation treatment plan., Methods and Materials: Data from 111 patients with head and neck cancer were used to establish a percentile-based scoring system for treatment plan quality evaluation on both a plan-by-plan and objective-by-objective basis. The percentile scores for each clinical objective and the overall treatment plan score were then visualized using a daisy plot. To validate our scoring method, 6 physicians were recruited to assess 60 plans, each using a scoring table consisting of a 5-point Likert scale (with scores ≥3 considered passing). Spearman correlation analysis was conducted to assess the association between increasing treatment plan percentile rank and physician rating, with Likert scores of 1 and 2 representing clinically unacceptable plans, scores of 3 and 4 representing plans needing minor edits, and a score of 5 representing clinically acceptable plans. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess the scoring system's ability to quantify plan quality., Results: Of the 60 plans scored by the physicians, 8 were deemed as clinically acceptable; these plans had an 89.0th ± 14.5 percentile value using our scoring system. The plans needing minor edits or deemed unacceptable had more variation, with scores falling in the 62.6nd ± 25.1 percentile and 35.6th ± 25.7 percentile, respectively. The estimated Spearman correlation coefficient between the physician score and treatment plan percentile was 0.53 ( P < .001), indicating a moderate but statistically significant correlation. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated discernment between acceptable and unacceptable plan quality, with an area under the curve of 0.76., Conclusions: Our scoring system correlates with physician ratings while providing intuitive visual feedback for identifying good treatment plan quality, thereby indicating its utility in the quality assurance process., Competing Interests: This project was performed by the radiation planning team at MD Anderson, which receives funding from the NCI, the Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas, the Wellcome Trust, and Varian Medical Systems. A premarket notification 510(k) for the Radiation Planning Assistant has been cleared for commercial distribution by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; however, it is yet to be marketed. Authors of this work also receive funds in whole or in part from the NIH, Elekta AB, Oncospace Inc, and Phillips Medical Systems., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: Current fiducial markers (FMs) in external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) cannot be positively visualized on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and create dose perturbation and significant imaging artifacts on computed tomography (CT) and MRI. We report our initial experience with clinical imaging of a novel multimodality FM, NOVA., Methods: We tested Gold Anchor [G-FM], BiomarC [carbon, C-FM], and NOVA FMs in phantoms imaged with kilovoltage (kV) X-rays, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), CT, and MRI. Artifacts of the FMs on CT were quantified by the relative streak artifacts level (rSAL) metric. Proton dose perturbations (PDPs) were measured with Gafchromic EBT3 film, with FMs oriented either perpendicular to or parallel with the beam axis. We also tested the performance of NOVA-FMs in a patient., Results: NOVA-FMs were positively visualized on all 4 imaging modalities tested. The rSAL on CT was 0.750 ± 0.335 for 2-mm reconstructed slices. In F-tests, PDP was associated with marker type and depth of measurement ( p < 10 -6 ); at 5-mm depth, PDP was significantly greater for the G-FM (12.9%, p = 10 -6 ) and C-FM (6.0%, p = 0.011) than NOVA (4.5%). EBRT planning with MRI/CT image co-registration and daily alignments using NOVA-FMs in a patient was feasible and reproducible., Conclusions: NOVA-FMs were positively visible and produced less PDP than G-FMs or C-FMs. NOVA-FMs facilitated MRI/CT fusion and identification of regions of interest.

Purpose: We compared work outcomes in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), randomized to intensity-modulated proton (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for chemoradiation therapy (CRT)., Patients and Methods: In 147 patients with stage II-IVB squamous cell OPC participating in patient-reported outcomes assessments, a prespecified secondary aim of a randomized phase II/III trial of IMPT (n = 69) versus IMRT (n = 78), we compared absenteeism, presenteeism (i.e., the extent to which an employee is not fully functional at work), and work productivity losses. We used the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire at baseline (pre-CRT), at the end of CRT, and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. A one-sided Cochran-Armitage test was used to analyze within-arm temporal trends, and a χ 2 test was used to compare between-arm differences. Among working patients, at each follow-up point, a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare work-productivity scores., Results: Patient characteristics in IMPT versus IMRT arms were similar. In the IMPT arm, within-arm analysis demonstrated that an increasing proportion of patients resumed working after IMPT, from 60% (40 of 67) pre-CRT and 71% (30 of 42) at 1 year to 78% (18 of 23) at 2 years ( P  = 0.025). In the IMRT arm, the proportion remained stable, with 57% (43 of 76) pre-CRT, 54% (21 of 39) at 1 year, and 52% (13 of 25) working at 2 years ( P  = 0.47). By 2 years after CRT, the between-arm difference between patients who had IMPT and those who had IMRT trended toward significance ( P  = 0.06). Regardless of treatment arm, among working patients, the most severe work impairments occurred from treatment initiation to the end of CRT, with significant recovery from absenteeism, presenteeism, and productivity impairments by the 2-year follow-up ( P  < 0.001 for all). Higher magnitudes of recovery from absenteeism (at 1 year, P  = 0.05; and at 2 years, P  = 0.04) and composite work impairment scores (at 1 year, P  = 0.04; and at 2 years, P  = 0.04) were seen in patients treated with IMPT versus those treated with IMRT., Conclusion: In patients with OPC receiving curative CRT, patients randomized to IMPT demonstrated increasing work and productivity recovery trends. Studies are needed to identify mechanisms underlying head and neck CRT treatment causing work disability and impairment., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: Steven J. Frank, MD, is an Associate Editor of the International Journal of Particle Therapy. Dr Frank reports grants and personal fees from Hitachi. Outside the submitted work, Dr Frank is a cofounder of C4 Imaging, LLC, for which he reports grants and personal fees, and he reports grants from Eli Lilly and Elekta, other remuneration from Breakthrough Chronic Care, and personal fees from Varian, Augmenix, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCN). The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (©Copyright 2021 The Author(s).)

Purpose: To characterize our experience and the disease control and toxicity of proton therapy (PT) for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC)., Patients and Methods: Clinical outcomes for patients with HNC treated with PT at our institution were prospectively collected in 2 institutional review board-approved prospective studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics and outcomes. Overall survival, local-regional control, and disease-free survival were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment-related toxicities were recorded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03) scale., Results: The cohort consisted of 573 patients treated from February 2006 to June 2018. Median patient age was 61 years. Oropharynx (33.3%; n = 191), paranasal sinus (11%; n = 63), and periorbital tissues (11%; n = 62) were the most common primary sites. Patients with T3/T4 or recurrent disease comprised 46% (n = 262) of the cohort. The intent of PT was definitive in 53% (n = 303), postoperative in 37% (n = 211), and reirradiation in 10% (n = 59). Median dose was 66 Gy (radiobiological equivalent). Regarding systemic therapy, 43% had received concurrent (n = 244), 3% induction (n = 19), and 15% (n = 86) had both. At a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 88 patients (15%) had died and 127 (22%) developed disease recurrence. The overall survival, local-regional control, and disease-free survival at 2 and 5 years were, respectively, 87% and 75%, 87% and 78%, and 74% and 63%. Maximum toxicity (acute or late) was grade 3 in 293 patients (51%), grade 2 in 234 patients (41%), and grade 1 in 31 patients (5%). There were 381 acute grade 3 and 190 late grade 3 unique toxicities across 212 (37%) and 150 (26%) patients, respectively. There were 3 late-grade 4 events across 2 patients (0.3%), 2 (0.3%) acute-grade 5, and no (0%) late-grade 5 events., Conclusions: The overall results from this prospective study of our initial decade of experience with PT for HNC show favorable disease control and toxicity outcomes in a multidisease-site cohort and provide a reference benchmark for future comparison and study., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: Steven J. Frank, MD, is an Associate Editor of the International Journal of Particle Therapy. Dr Frank is a scientific advisory board member of Breakthrough Chronic Care; he has received research grants from C4 Imaging, Eli Lilly, Elekta, and Hitachi, and he has reported personal fees from Varian Medical Systems, Inc (consultant/advisory board), C4 Imaging (founder and director), Hitachi (honoraria/advisory board), Augmenix (honoraria), and National Comprehensive Cancer Center (board member). Stephen G. Chun, MD, is a consultant for AstraZeneca, PLC. The authors report no other conflicts of interest., (©Copyright 2021 The Author(s).)