Search

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has gradually been recognized as favorable curative treatment for localized prostate cancer (PC). However, the high rate of erectile dysfunction (ED) after traditional photon-based SBRT remains an ongoing challenge that greatly impacts the quality of life of PC survivors. Modern proton therapy allows higher conformal SBRT delivery and has the potential to reduce ED occurrence but its cost-effectiveness remains uninvestigated.A Markov decision model was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proton SBRT versus photon SBRT in reducing irradiation-related ED. Base-case evaluation was performed on a 66-year-old (median age of PC) localized PC patient with normal pretreatment erectile function. Further, stratified analyses were performed for different age groups (50, 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 years) and threshold analyses were conducted to estimate cost-effective scenarios. A Chinese societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (37,653 US dollars [$])/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) was adopted.For the base case, protons provided an additional 0.152 QALY at an additional cost of $7233.4, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $47,456.5/QALY. Protons was cost-effective for patients ≤62-year-old at the WTP of China (≤66-year-old at a WTP of $50,000/QALY; ≤73-year-old at a WTP of $100,000/QALY). For patients at median age, once the current proton cost ($18,000) was reduced to ≤$16,505.7 or the patient had a life expectancy ≥88 years, protons were cost-effective at the WTP of China.Upon assumption-based modeling, the results of current study support the use of proton SBRT in younger localized PC patients who are previously potent, for better preservation of erectile function. The findings await further validation using data from future comparative clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Major differences exist among proton therapy (PT) centres regarding PT delivery in adult cancer patient. To obtain insight into current practice in Europe, we performed a survey among European PT centres. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed electronic questionnaires for eight tumour sites, focusing on four main topics: 1) indications and patient selection methods; 2) reimbursement; 3) on-going or planned studies, 4) annual number of patients treated with PT. RESULTS: Of 22 centres, 19 (86%) responded. In total, 4233 adult patients are currently treated across Europe annually, of which 46% consists of patients with central nervous system tumours (CNS), 15% head and neck cancer (HNC), 15% prostate, 9% breast, 5% lung, 5% gastrointestinal, 4% lymphoma, 0.3% gynaecological cancers. CNS are treated in all participating centres (n = 19) using PT, HNC in 16 centres, lymphoma in 10 centres, gastrointestinal in 10 centres, breast in 7 centres, prostate in 6 centres, lung in 6 centres, and gynaecological cancers in 3 centres. Reimbursement is provided by national health care systems for the majority of commonly treated tumour sites. Approximately 74% of centres enrol patients for prospective data registration programs. Phase II-III trials are less frequent, due to reimbursement and funding problems. Reasons for not treating certain tumour types with PT are lack of evidence (30%), reimbursement issues (29%) and/or technical limitations (20%). CONCLUSION: Across European PT centres, CNS tumours and HNC are the most frequently treated tumour types. Most centres use indication protocols. Lack of evidence for PT and reimbursement issues are the most reported reasons for not treating specific tumour types with PT. ispartof: RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY vol:167 pages:7-13 ispartof: location:Ireland status: published

Objective Radiotherapy (RT) is an integral part of the interdisciplinary treatment of patients with high-risk neuroblastoma (NB). With the continuous improvements of outcome, the interest in local treatment strategies that reduce treatment-related side effects while achieving optimal oncological results is growing. Proton beam therapy (PBT) represents a promising alternative to conventional photon irradiation with regard to the reduction of treatment burden. Method Retrospective analysis of children with high or intermediate risk NB receiving PBT of the primary tumor site during first-line therapy between 2015 and 2020 was performed. Data from the prospective in-house registry Standard Protonentherapie WPE – Kinder- (KiProReg) with respect to tumor control and treatment toxicity were analyzed. Adverse events were classified according to CTCAE Version 4 (V4.0) before, during, and after PBT. Results In total, 44 patients (24 male, 20 female) with high (n = 39) or intermediate risk NB (n = 5) were included in the analysis. Median age was 3.4 years (range, 1.4–9.9 years). PBT doses ranged from 21.0 to 39.6 Gray (Gy) (median 36.0 Gy). Five patients received PBT to the MIBG-avid residual at the primary tumor site at time of PBT according to the NB-2004 protocol. In 39 patients radiation was given to the pre-operative tumor bed with or without an additional boost in case of residual tumor. After a median follow-up (FU) of 27.6 months, eight patients developed progression, either local recurrence (n = 1) or distant metastases (n = 7). Four patients died due to tumor progression. At three years, the estimated local control, distant metastatic free survival, progression free survival, and overall survival was 97.7, 84.1, 81.8, and 90.9%, respectively. During radiation, seven patients experienced higher-grade (CTCAE ≥ °3) hematologic toxicity. No other higher grade acute toxicity occurred. After PBT, one patient developed transient myelitis while receiving immunotherapy. No higher grade long-term toxicity was observed up to date. Conclusion PBT was a well tolerated and effective local treatment in children with high and intermediate risk NB. The role of RT in an intensive multidisciplinary treatment regimen remains to be studied in the future in order to better define timing, doses, target volumes, and general need for RT in a particularly sensitive cohort of patients.