Estimating the percentage of patients who might benefit from proton beam therapy instead of X-ray radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: High-energy Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) commenced in England in 2018 and NHS England commissions PBT for 1.5% of patients receiving radical radiotherapy. We sought expert opinion on the level of provision. METHODS: Invitations were sent to 41 colleagues working in PBT, most at one UK centre, to contribute by completing a spreadsheet. 39 responded: 23 (59%) completed the spreadsheet; 16 (41%) declined, arguing that clinical outcome data are lacking, but joined six additional site-specialist oncologists for two consensus meetings. The spreadsheet was pre-populated with incidence data from Cancer Research UK and radiotherapy use data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. 'Mechanisms of Benefit' of reduced growth impairment, reduced toxicity, dose escalation and reduced second cancer risk were examined. RESULTS: The most reliable figure for percentage of radical radiotherapy patients likely to benefit from PBT was that agreed by 95% of the 23 respondents at 4.3%, slightly larger than current provision. The median was 15% (range 4-92%) and consensus median 13%. The biggest estimated potential benefit was from reducing toxicity, median benefit to 15% (range 4-92%), followed by dose escalation median 3% (range 0 to 47%); consensus values were 12 and 3%. Reduced growth impairment and reduced second cancer risk were calculated to benefit 0.5% and 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The most secure estimate of percentage benefit was 4.3% but insufficient clinical outcome data exist for confident estimates. The study supports the NHS approach of using the evidence base and developing it through randomised trials, non-randomised studies and outcomes tracking. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Less is known about the percentage of patients who may benefit from PBT than is generally acknowledged. Expert opinion varies widely. Insufficient clinical outcome data exist to provide robust estimates. Considerable further work is needed to address this, including international collaboration; much is already underway but will take time to provide mature data.

50 years of radiotherapy research: Evolution, trends and lessons for the future.

Rapid and relentless technological advances in an ever-more globalized world have shaped the field of radiation oncology in which we practise today. These developments have drastically modified the habitus1 of health professionals and researchers at an individual and organisational level. In this article we present an analysis of trends in radiation oncology research over the last half a century. To do so, the data from >350,000 scientific publications pertaining to a yearly search of the PubMed database with the keywords cancer radiotherapy was analysed. This analysis revealed that, over the years, radiotherapy research output has declined relative to alternative cancer therapies, representing 64% in 1970 it decreased to 31% in 2019. Also, the pace of research has significantly accelerated with, in the last 15 years, a doubling in the number of articles published by the 10% most productive researchers. Researchers are also facing stronger competition today with a proportion of first authors that will never get to publish as a last author increasing steadily from 58% in 1970 to 84% in 2000. Additionally, radiotherapy research output is extremely unequally distributed in the world, with Africa and South America contributing to ∼3% of radiotherapy articles in 2019 while representing 23% of the world's population. This disparity, reflecting economic situations and radiotherapy capabilities, has a knock-on effect for the provision of routine clinical treatment. Since research activity is inherent to delivery of high quality clinical care, this contributes to the global inequity of radiotherapy services. Learning from these trends is crucial for the future not only of radiation oncology research but also for effective and equitable cancer care.

The International Atomic Energy Agency global initiatives on nasopharyngeal cancer treatment.

Since its establishment in 1957, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has striven to promote global access to reliable and affordable radiotherapy, with much of its latest focus being in developing countries. While nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) is highly curable by radiotherapy with excellent outcomes in developed countries, the outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disappointing. Although the reasons for this are complex and multifactorial, improving the accessibility and quality of radiotherapy in these countries is fundamental. With concerted effort from experts and advocates around the world, ongoing initiatives are supported by the IAEA to combat the challenges in LMICs.

Global Pattern of Nasopharyngeal Cancer: Correlation of Outcome With Access to Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate the treatment outcome of nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) across the world and its correlation with access to radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The age-standardized mortality (ASM) and age-standardized incidence (ASI) rates of NPC from GLOBOCAN (2012) were summarized, and [1-(ASM/ASI)] was computed to give the proxy relative survival (RS). Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Bank were used to assess the availability of RT in surrogate terms: the number of RT equipment units and radiation oncologists per million population. RESULTS: A total of 112 countries with complete valid data were analyzed, and the proxy RS varied widely from 0% to 83% (median, 50%). Countries were categorized into Good, Median, and Poor outcome groups on the basis of their proxy RS (<45%, 45%-55%, and >55%). Eighty percent of new cases occurred in the Poor outcome group. Univariable linear regression showed a significant correlation between outcome and the availability of RT: proxy RS increased at 3.4% (P<.001) and 1.5% (P=.001) per unit increase in RT equipment and oncologist per million population, respectively. The median number of RT equipment units per million population increased significantly from 0.5 in the Poor, to 1.5 in the Median, to 4.6 in the Good outcome groups, and the corresponding number of oncologists increased from 1.1 to 3.3 to 7.1 (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nasopharyngeal cancer is a highly treatable disease, but the outcome varies widely across the world. The current study shows a significant correlation between survival and access to RT based on available surrogate indicators. However, the possible reasons for poor outcome are likely to be multifactorial and complex. Concerted international efforts are needed not only to address the fundamental requirement for adequate RT access but also to obtain more comprehensive and accurate data for research to improve cancer outcome.