Reirradiation With Proton Therapy for Recurrent Malignancies of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction: Results of the Proton Collaborative Group Multi-Institutional Prospective Registry Trial.

Purpose: Treatment options for recurrent esophageal cancer (EC) previously treated with radiation therapy (RT) are limited. Reirradiation (reRT) with proton beam therapy (PBT) can offer lower toxicities by limiting doses to surrounding tissues. In this study, we present the first multi-institutional series reporting on toxicities and outcomes after reRT for locoregionally recurrent EC with PBT. Methods and Materials: Analysis of the prospective, multicenter, Proton Collaborative Group registry of patients with recurrent EC who had previously received photon-based RT and underwent PBT reRT was performed. Patient/tumor characteristics, treatment details, outcomes, and toxicities were collected. Local control (LC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Event time was determined from reRT start. Results: Between 2012 and 2020, 31 patients received reRT via uniform scanning/passive scattering (61.3%) or pencil beam scanning (38.7%) PBT at 7 institutions. Median prior RT, PBT reRT, and cumulative doses were 50.4 Gy (range, 37.5-110.4), 48.6 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) (25.2-72.1), and 99.9 Gy (79.1-182.5), respectively. Of these patients, 12.9% had 2 prior RT courses, and 67.7% received PBT with concurrent chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 7.2 months (0.9-64.7). Post-PBT, there were 16.7% locoregional only, 11.1% distant only, and 16.7% locoregional and distant recurrences. Six-month LC, DMFS, and OS were 80.5%, 83.4%, and 69.1%, respectively. One-year LC, DMFS, and OS were 67.1%, 83.4%, and 27%, respectively. Acute grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 23% of patients, with 1 acute grade 5 toxicity secondary to esophageal hemorrhage, unclear if related to reRT or disease progression. No grade ≥3 late toxicities were reported. Conclusions: In the largest report to date of PBT for reRT in patients with recurrent EC, we observed acceptable acute toxicities and encouraging rates of disease control. However, these findings are limited by the poor prognoses of these patients, who are at high risk of mortality. Further research is needed to better assess the long-term benefits and toxicities of PBT in this specific patient population.

Evaluation of the utility of rescans in the treatment of prostate and pelvic nodes with pencil beam scanning protons.

To determine the necessity of the first week CT simulation rescan of pencil beam scanning (PBS) prostate patients requiring treatment to the pelvic lymph nodes. Patients were treated on a prospective registry trial sponsored by the Proton Collaborative Group (PCG-NCT01255748). A total of 42 patients with high-risk prostate cancer requiring treatment to the pelvic lymph nodes were evaluated in a single calendar year. The cohort consisted of a mix of intact prostate and postprostatectomy patients. Most of the patients were treated with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) approach for the majority of the plan. The radiation prescriptions varied depending on whether the patient had an intact prostate or prostate bed. The plan geometry consisted of two lateral beams and a single field optimization (SFO) dosimetric matching technique using pencil beam scanning proton therapy. An in-house protocol was established wherein all high-risk prostate patients had at least 1 rescan evaluation performed during the first 5 ± 2 fractions, which was used to determine whether the nominal approved plan was robust to daily setup uncertainties and anatomical variations. If the evaluation failed clinical analysis, an adaptive replan was created. If 5% or more of the evaluated rescans resulted in a qualified adaptive plan, the planning technique would be considered insufficient. Of the 42 patients investigated, five (11.9%) required an adaptive plan. As it turned out, all five of these patients would have been rescanned within the first 5 fractions of treatment, independent of the established rescan protocol, due to a physician, dosimetrist, or therapist requesting a rescan to investigate specific areas of concern regarding setup or anatomic changes. Of the 5 adaptive plans, only one (2.4%) meets the criteria of a qualified adaptive plan. Our findings substantiated that this policy of a planned rescan with the 5th fraction was no longer necessary, the dosimetric technique had proven to be robust, and moving forward we will only perform these rescans if there is a significant issue with daily setups or observed changes in anatomy.

Initial Quality of Life and Toxicity Analysis of a Randomized Phase 3 Study of Moderately Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy With or Without Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate: PCG GU003.

Purpose: Our objective was to report the quality of life (QoL) analysis and toxicity in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) GU003. Methods and Materials: Between 2012 and 2019, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy (PBT) to 70 Gy relative biologic effectiveness in 28 fractions to the prostate with or without 6 months of ADT. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, Short-Form 12, and the American Urological Association Symptom Index instruments were given at baseline and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after PBT. Toxicities were assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4). Results: One hundred ten patients were randomized to PBT either with 6 months of ADT (n = 55) or without ADT (n = 55). The median follow-up was 32.4 months (range, 5.5-84.6). On average, 101 out of 110 (92%) patients filled out baseline QoL and patient-reported outcome surveys. The compliance was 84%, 82%, 64%, and 42% at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Baseline median American Urological Association Symptom Index was comparable between arms (6 [11%] ADT vs 5 [9%] no ADT, P = .359). Acute and late grade 2+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were similar between arms. The ADT arm experienced a QoL decline of mean scores in the sexual (-16.1, P < .001) and hormonal (-6.3, P < .001) domains, with the largest time-specific hormonal differences at 3 (-13.8, P < .001) and 6 (-11.2, P < .001) months. The hormonal QoL domain returned to baseline 6 months after therapy. There was a trend to baseline in sexual function 6 months after completion of ADT. Conclusions: After 6 months of ADT, sexual and hormonal domains returned to baseline 6 months after completion of treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Proton therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: Results from the Proton Collaborative Group PCG 001-09 prospective registry trial.

BACKGROUND: Data for proton therapy in high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) are limited. Using the Proton Collaborative Group prospective registry, we evaluated outcomes for HRPC patients treated with proton therapy. METHODS: A totsl of 605 men with localized HRPC treated with proton therapy from 8/2009 to 3/2019 at nine institutions were selected. Outcomes examined included freedom from progression (FFP), metastasis free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Multivariable cox/binomial regression models were used to assess predictors of FFP and toxicity. RESULTS: Median age was 71 years. Gleason grade groups 4 (49.4%) and 5 (31.7%) were most common, as were clinical stage T1c (46.1%) and cT2 (41.3%). The median pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 9.18 and median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 6. Androgen deprivation therapy was given in 63.6%. Median dose was 79.2 GyE in 44 fractions. Pelvic lymph nodes were treated in 58.2% of cases. Pencil beam scanning was used in 54.5%, uniform scanning in 38.8%, and a rectal spacer in 14.2%. At a median followup of 22 months, the 3- and 5-year FFP were 90.7% and 81.4%, respectively. Five-year MFS and OS were 92.8% and 95.9%, respectively. Independent correlates of FFP included Gleason ≥8, PSA > 10, and cT2 (all p < 0.05). No grade 4 or 5 adverse events were reported. There were 23 (5%) grade 2 and 0 grade 3 gastrointestinal events. Prevalence of late grade 3, late grade 2, acute grade 3, and acute grade 2 genitourinary toxicity was 1.7%, 5.8%, 0%, and 21.8%, respectively. Prevalence of grade 2 and 3 erectile dysfunction at 2 years was 48.4% and 8.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest series published to date, our results suggest early outcomes using proton therapy for HRPC are encouraging for both safety and efficacy. Further evaluation is needed to determine if an advantage exists to use protons over other radiation techniques in this population.

Radiotherapy for Atypical Teratoid/Rhabdoid Tumor (ATRT) on the Pediatric Proton/Photon Consortium Registry (PPCR).

PURPOSE: Atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors (ATRT) of the central nervous system (CNS) are rare tumors with a poor prognosis and variable use of either focal or craniospinal (CSI) radiotherapy (RT). Outcomes on the prospective Pediatric Proton/Photon Consortium Registry (PPCR) were evaluated according to RT delivered. METHODS: Pediatric patients receiving RT were prospectively enrolled on PPCR to collect initial patient, disease, and treatment factors as well as provide follow-up for patient outcomes. All ATRT patients with evaluable data were included. Kaplan-Meier analyses with log-rank p-values and cox proportional hazards regression were performed. RESULTS: The PPCR ATRT cohort includes 68 evaluable ATRT patients (median age 2.6 years, range 0.71-15.40) from 2012 to 2021. Median follow-up was 40.8 months (range 3.4-107.7). Treatment included surgery (65% initial gross total resection or GTR), chemotherapy (60% with myeloablative therapy including stem cell rescue) and RT. For patients with M0 stage (n = 60), 50 (83%) had focal RT and 10 (17%) had CSI. Among patients with M + stage (n = 8), 3 had focal RT and 5 had CSI. Four-year overall survival (OS, n = 68) was 56% with no differences observed between M0 and M + stage patients (p = 0.848). Local Control (LC) at 4 years did not show a difference for lower primary dose (50-53.9 Gy) compared to ≥ 54 Gy (73.3% vs 74.7%, p = 0.83). For patients with M0 disease, four-year OS for focal RT was 54.6% and for CSI was 60% (Hazard Ratio 1.04, p = 0.95. Four-year event free survival (EFS) among M0 patients for focal RT was 45.6% and for CSI was 60% (Hazard Ratio 0.71, p = 0.519). For all patients, the 4-year OS comparing focal RT with CSI was 54.4% vs 60% respectively (p = 0.944), and the 4-year EFS for focal RT or CSI was 42.8% vs 51.4% respectively (p = 0.610). CONCLUSION: The PPCR ATRT cohort found no differences in outcomes according to receipt of either higher primary dose or larger RT field (CSI). However, most patients were M0 and received focal RT. A lower primary dose (50.4 Gy), regardless of patient age, is appealing for further study as part of multi-modality therapy.

Clinical outcomes and toxicities of 100 patients treated with proton therapy for chordoma on the proton collaborative group prospective registry.

BACKGROUND: We present efficacy and toxicity outcomes among patients with chordoma treated on the Proton Collaborative Group prospective registry. METHODS: Consecutive chordoma patients treated between 2010-2018 were evaluated. One hundred fifty patients were identified, 100 had adequate follow-up information. Locations included base of skull (61%), spine (23%), and sacrum (16%). Patients had a performance status of ECOG 0-1 (82%) and median age of 58 years. Eighty-five percent of patients underwent surgical resection. The median proton RT dose was 74 Gy (RBE) (range 21-86 Gy (RBE)) using passive scatter proton RT (PS-PBT) (13%), uniform scanning proton RT (US-PBT) (54%) and pencil beam scanning proton RT (PBS-PBT) (33%). Rates of local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and acute and late toxicities were assessed. RESULTS: 2/3-year LC, PFS, and OS rates are 97%/94%, 89%/74%, and 89%/83%, respectively. LC did not differ based on surgical resection (p = 0.61), though this is likely limited by most patients having undergone a prior resection. Eight patients experienced acute grade 3 toxicities, most commonly pain (n = 3), radiation dermatitis (n = 2), fatigue (n = 1), insomnia (n = 1) and dizziness (n = 1). No grade ≥ 4 acute toxicities were reported. No grade ≥ 3 late toxicities were reported, and most common grade 2 toxicities were fatigue (n = 5), headache (n = 2), CNS necrosis (n = 1), and pain (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: In our series, PBT achieved excellent safety and efficacy outcomes with very low rates of treatment failure. CNS necrosis is exceedingly low (<1%) despite the high doses of PBT delivered. Further maturation of data and larger patient numbers are necessary to optimize therapy in chordoma.

Temporal Evolution and Diagnostic Diversification of Patients Receiving Proton Therapy in the United States: A Ten-Year Trend Analysis (2012 to 2021) From the National Association for Proton Therapy.

PURPOSE: The National Association for Proton Therapy conducted 8 surveys of all operational United States proton centers (2012-2021) and analyzed the patients treated, diagnoses, and treatment complexity to evaluate trends and diversification of patients receiving proton therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Detailed surveys were sent in 2015, which requested data from 2012 to 2014, and then annually thereafter to active proton centers in the United States. The numbers of patient treated at each center for the preceding calendar year(s) were collated for tumors in the following categories: central nervous system, intraocular, pituitary, skull base/skeleton, head/neck, lung, retroperitoneal/soft tissue sarcoma, pediatric (solid tumors in children of age ≤18), gastrointestinal tract, urinary tract, female pelvic, prostate, breast, and "other." Complexity levels were assessed using Current Procedural Terminology codes 77520-77525. RESULTS: Survey response rates were excellent (100% in 2015 to 94.9% in 2021); additional publicly available information provided near-complete information on all centers. Trend comparisons between 2012 and 2021 showed that the total annual number of patients treated with protons gradually increased from 5377 to 15,829. The largest numeric increases were for head/neck (316 to 2303; 7.3-fold), breast (93 to 1452; 15.6-fold), and gastrointestinal tumors (170 to 1259; 7.4-fold). Patient numbers also increased significantly for central nervous system (598 to 1743; 2.9-fold), pediatric (685 to 1870; 2.7-fold), and skull base tumors (179 to 514; 2.9-fold). For prostate cancer, the percentage of proton-treated patients decreased from 43.4% to 25.0% of the total. Simple compensated treatments decreased from 43% in 2012 to 7% in 2021, whereas intermediate complexity treatments increased from 45% to 73%. CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients treated with protons is gradually increasing, with a substantial proportionate decline in patients with prostate cancer receiving proton therapy. The number of patients treated for "commonly accepted" indications for protons (eg, pediatric, central nervous system, and skull base tumors) is gradually increasing. Greater proportional increases were observed for breast, lung, head/neck, and gastrointestinal tumors. Treatment complexity is gradually increasing over time.

Proton therapy for isolated local regional recurrence of breast cancer after mastectomy alone.

Purpose/Objectives: To assess adverse events (AEs) and disease-specific outcomes after proton therapy for isolated local-regional recurrence (LRR) of breast cancer after mastectomy without prior radiotherapy (RT). Materials/Methods: Patients were identified from a multi-institutional prospective registry and included if diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, initially underwent mastectomy without adjuvant RT, experienced an LRR, and subsequently underwent salvage treatment, including proton therapy. Follow-up and cancer outcomes were measured from the date of RT completion. Results: Nineteen patients were included. Seventeen patients were treated with proton therapy to the chest wall and comprehensive regional lymphatics (17/19, 90%). Maximum grade AE was grade 2 in 13 (69%) patients and grade 3 in 4 (21%) patients. All patients with grade 3 AE received > 60 GyE (p=0.04, Spearman correlation coefficient=0.5). At the last follow-up, 90% of patients were alive with no LRR or distant recurrence. Conclusions: For breast cancer patients with isolated LRR after initial mastectomy without adjuvant RT, proton therapy is well-tolerated in the salvage setting with excellent loco-regional control. All grade 3 AEs occurred in patients receiving > 60 GyE.

Outcomes and toxicities after proton partial breast radiotherapy for early stage, hormone receptor positive breast cancer: 3-Year results of a phase II multi-center trial.

Purpose: Proton therapy (PT) for partial breast irradiation (PBI) in early-stage breast cancer can decrease morbidity versus photon PBI with superior organs-at-risk sparing. We report 3-year outcomes of the first prospective, multicenter, phase II trial of proton PBI. Methods and Materials: This Proton Collaborative Group phase II trial (PCG BRE007-12) recruited women ≥ 50 years with node-negative, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, ≤3cm, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) or ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing breast conserving surgery followed by proton PBI (40 Gy(RBE), 10 daily fractions). Primary endpoint was freedom from ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence. Adverse events were prospectively graded using CTCAEv4.0. Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) assessed patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL). Results: Thirty-eight evaluable patients enrolled between 2/2013-11/2016. Median age was 67 years (range 50-79); 55 % had left-sided disease, and median tumor size was 0.9 cm. Treatment was delivered in ≥ 2 fields predominantly with uniform scanning PT (n = 37). At 35-month median follow-up (12-62), all patients were alive, and none had local, regional or distant disease progression. One patient developed an ER-negative contralateral IDC. Seven grade 2 adverse events occurred; no radiotherapy-related grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred. Changes in BCTOS subdomain mean scores were maximum 0.36, indicating no meaningful change in PRQOL. Median heart volume receiving 5 Gy (V5Gy), lung V20Gy, and lung V10Gy were 0 %, 0 % and 0.19 %, respectively. Conclusion: At 3 years, proton PBI provided 100 % cancer control for early-stage, ER-positive breast cancer. Toxicities are minimal, and PRQOL remains acceptable with continued follow-up. These findings support PT as a safe and effective PBI delivery option.

Chemoradiation with Hypofractionated Proton Therapy in Stage II-III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Proton Collaborative Group Phase 2 Trial.

PURPOSE: Hypofractionated radiation therapy has been safely implemented in the treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but not locally advanced NSCLC owing to prohibitive toxicities with photon therapy. Proton therapy, however, may allow for safe delivery of hypofractionated radiation therapy. We sought to determine whether hypofractionated proton therapy with concurrent chemotherapy improves overall survival. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Proton Collaborative Group conducted a phase 1/2 single-arm nonrandomized prospective multicenter trial from 2013 through 2018. We received consent from 32 patients, of whom 28 were eligible for on-study treatment. Patients had stage II or III unresectable NSCLC (based on the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer's staging manual) and received hypofractionated proton therapy at 2.5 to 4 Gy per fraction to a total 60 Gy with concurrent platin-based doublet chemotherapy. The primary outcome was 1-year overall survival comparable to the 62% reported for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9410 trial. RESULTS: The trial closed early owing to slow accrual, in part, from a competing trial, RTOG 1308. Median patient age was 70 years (range, 50-86 years). Patients were predominantly male (n = 20), White (n = 23), and prior smokers (n = 27). Most had stage III NSCLC (n = 22), 50% of whom had adenocarcinoma. After a median follow-up of 31 months, the 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 89% and 49%, respectively, and progression-free survival rates were 58% and 32%, respectively. No acute grade ≥3 esophagitis occurred. Only 14% developed a grade ≥3 radiation-related pulmonary toxic effect. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated proton therapy delivered at 2.5 to 3.53 Gy per fraction to a total 60 Gy with concurrent chemotherapy provides promising survival, and additional examination through larger studies may be warranted.

Clinical Outcomes After Proton Beam Therapy for Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Analysis of a Multi-institutional Prospective Registry.

PURPOSE: For most disease sites, level 1 evidence is lacking for proton beam therapy (PBT). By identifying target populations that would benefit most from PBT, prospective registries could overcome many of the challenges in clinical trial enrollment. Herein, we report clinical outcomes of patients treated with PBT for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data were obtained from the multi-institutional prospective database of the Proton Collaborative Group (PCG). Inclusion criteria of our study were stage III de novo or recurrent LA-NSCLC, use of PBT, and availability of follow-up data. Overall survival (OS) time was calculated from the start of treatment until death or last follow-up. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated for groups of interest and compared with log-rank tests. Cox regression modeling was used to evaluate the multivariate association between selected covariates and OS. RESULTS: A total of 195 patients were included in the analysis. PBT was given with a median equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) of 63.8 Gy (relative biological effectiveness). Pencil beam scanning was used in 20% of treatments. Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were rare: 1 pneumonitis, 2 dermatitis, and 3 esophagitis. No grade 4 events were reported. Two cardiac-related grade 5 events occurred in patients with multiple risk factors. The median follow-up time for living patients was 37.1 months and the median OS was 19.0 months. On multivariate analysis, good performance status (hazard ratio, 0.27; [95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.46]; P < .0001), pencil beam scanning use (0.55; [0.31-0.97]; P = .04), and increased EQD2 (0.80; [0.71-0.90] - per 10 Gy increase; P = .0002) were associated with decreased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PBT appears to yield low rates of adverse events with an OS similar to other retrospective studies on PBT for LA-NSCLC. PBS use and increased EQD2 can potentially improve OS.

Factors Associated With Acute Toxicity in Pediatric Patients Treated With Proton Radiation Therapy: A Report From the Pediatric Proton Consortium Registry.

PURPOSE: Limited prospective information regarding acute toxicity in pediatric patients receiving proton therapy (PT) exists. In this study, Pediatric Proton Consortium Registry (PPCR) data was analyzed for factors associated with development of acute toxicity in children receiving passively scattered or pencil beam scanning PT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Pediatric patients treated with PT and enrolled on the PPCR from 2016 to 2017 at 7 institutions were included. Data were entered on presence versus absence of acute general, cardiac, endocrine, eye, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, hematologic, mouth, musculoskeletal, neurologic, psychological, respiratory, and skin toxicities before (baseline) and at the end of PT (acute). Associations between patient and treatment variables with development of acute toxicity were assessed with multivariable modeling. RESULTS: Of 422 patients included, PT technique was passively scattered in 241 (57%), pencil beam scanning in 180 (43%), and missing in 1 (<1%) patient. Median age was 9.9 years. Daily anesthesia for treatment was used in 169 (40%). Treatments were categorized as craniospinal irradiation (CSI; n = 100, 24%), focal central nervous system PT (n = 157, 38%), or body PT (n = 158, 38%). Passively scattered PT was associated with increased risk of hematologic toxicity compared with pencil beam scanning PT (odds ratio [OR]: 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-6.70; P = .006). There were no other differences toxicities between PT techniques. Uninsured patients had increased risk of GI (OR: 2.71; 95% CI, 1.12-6.58; P = .027) and hematologic toxicity (OR: 10.67; 95% CI, 2.68-42.46; P <.001). Patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy were more likely to experience skin (OR: 2.45; 95% CI, 1.23-4.88; P = .011), hematologic (OR: 2.87; 95% CI, 1.31-6.25; P = .008), GI (OR: 2.37; 95% CI, 1.33-4.21; P = .003), and mouth toxicities (OR: 2.03; 95% CI, 1.10-3.73; P = .024). Patients receiving 49 to 55 Gy were more likely to experience skin (OR: 2.18; 95% CI, 1.06-4.44; P = .033) toxicity than those receiving <49 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: The PPCR registry highlights broad differences in acute toxicity rates in children receiving PT, and identifies opportunities for improvements in prevention, monitoring, and treatment of toxicities.

Variation in Proton Craniospinal Irradiation Practice Patterns in the United States: A Pediatric Proton Consortium Registry (PPCR) Study.

PURPOSE: Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) is commonly used for pediatric brain tumors with a propensity for spread in craniospinal fluid, principally medulloblastoma. Evolving technology has led to the use of highly conformal radiation therapy (RT) techniques for CSI, including proton therapy. Target delineation and plan coverage are critical for CSI, but there is ongoing controversy and variability in these realms, with little available data on practice patterns. We sought to characterize proton CSI practice patterns in the United States by examining CSI plans in the Pediatric Proton/Photon Consortium Registry (PPCR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PPCR was queried for data on proton CSI patients from 2015 to early 2020. Each plan was manually reviewed, determining patient position; prescription dose; and coverage of optic nerves, vertebral bodies, spinal nerve roots, sacral nerves, and cranial foramina, among other variables. Two radiation oncologists blinded to clinical data and treating institution assessed coverage at the 95% prescription isodose line and per published European Society for Paediatric Oncology guidelines. Variability in coverage was assessed with nonparametric tests and univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: PPCR supplied data for 450 patients, 384 of whom had an evaluable portion of a CSI plan. Most patients (90.3%) were supine. Optic nerves were fully covered in 48.2%; sacral nerves in 87.7%; cranial foramina in 69.3%; and spinal nerves in 95.6%. Vertebral body (VB) sparing was used in 18.6% of skeletally immature cases, increasing over time (P < .001). Coverage in all categories was significantly different among treating institutions, on univariate and multivariate analyses. Cribriform plate deficits were rare, with marginal misses of the foramen ovale (17.4%) and frontal lobe (12%) most common. CONCLUSION: We found consistent variation based on treating institution in proton CSI practices including optic nerve, VB, sacral nerve, cranial, and spinal nerve coverage. These data may serve as a baseline quantification of current proton CSI practices in the United States as they continue to evolve.

Dosimetry and Acute Toxicity Profile of Patients With Esophageal Cancer Treated With Proton Beam Radiation Therapy: Outcomes From the Proton Collaborative Group REG001-09 Trial.

PURPOSE: Concurrent chemoradiation plays an integral role in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Proton beam radiation therapy has the potential to spare adjacent critical organs, improving toxicity profiles and potentially improving clinical outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We evaluated the REG001-09 registry for patients undergoing proton radiation therapy for esophageal cancer. Demographic, clinicopathologic, toxicity, and dosimetry information were compiled. RESULTS: We identified 155 patients treated at 10 institutions between 2010 and 2019. One hundred twenty (77%) had adenocarcinoma and 34 (22%) had squamous cell carcinoma. One hundred thirty-seven (88%) received concurrent chemotherapy. The median delivered dose was 50.51 Gy-equivalent (GyE; range, 41.4-70.1). Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 22 (14%) of patients and were most commonly dysphagia (6%), esophagitis (4%), anorexia (4%), and nausea (2%). There were no episodes of grade ≥4 lymphopenia and no grade 5 toxicities. The average mean heart, lung, and liver doses and average maximum spinal cord dose were 10.0 GyE, 4.8 GyE, 3.8 GyE, and 34.2 GyE, respectively. For gastroesophageal junction tumors, 8% of patients developed acute grade ≥3 toxicity and the mean heart, liver, right kidney, and left kidney doses were 10.5 GyE, 3.9 GyE, 0.4 GyE, and 4.9 GyE, respectively. Gastroesophageal junction location was protective against development of grade ≥3 toxicity on univariate (P = .0009) and multivariate (P = .004) analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Proton beam radiation therapy affords excellent dosimetric parameters and low toxicity in patients with esophageal cancer treated with curative intent. Prospective trials are underway investigating the comparative benefit of proton-based therapy.

Radiation Induced Cavernomas in the Treatment of Pediatric Medulloblastoma: Comparative Study Between Proton and Photon Radiation Therapy.

Radiation induced cavernomas among children with medulloblastoma are common following external beam radiation (XRT) treatment with either photon or proton beams. However, with the increased utilization of proton beam therapy over the last decade we sought to determine if there was any difference in the development or natural history of these cavernous malformations (CM) or CM-like lesions. We performed a retrospective analysis of 79 patients from 2003 to 2019 who had undergone resection of medulloblastoma and subsequent XRT (30 photon or 49 proton beam therapy). The average age of patients at radiation treatment was 8.7 years old. Average follow up for patients who received photon beam therapy was 105 months compared to 56.8 months for proton beam therapy. A total of 68 patients (86.1%) developed post-radiation CMs, including 26 photon and 42 proton patients (86.7% and 85.7% respectively). The time to cavernoma development was significantly different, with a mean of 40.2 months for photon patients and 18.2 months for proton patients (p = 1.98 x 10-4). Three patients, one who received photon and two who received proton beam radiation, required surgical resection of a cavernoma. Although CM or CM-like lesions are detected significantly earlier in patients after receiving proton beam therapy, there appears to be no significant difference between the two radiation therapy modalities in the development of significant CM requiring surgical resection or intervention other than continued follow up and surveillance.

Radiation Oncology's Place in Payment Reform: ASTRO Advocates for a Place at the Table.

In its current form, the Radiation Oncology Model (RO Model) prioritizes payment cuts over true value-based payment transformation. With significant modifications to the payment methodology, the reporting requirements, and recognition of the unique challenges faced by disadvantaged populations, the RO Model can protect patient access to care, preserve the physician-patient decision-making process, and ensure the delivery of high-quality, efficient radiation therapy treatment. The American Society for Radiation Oncology has spent several years advocating for a meaningful alternative payment model for radiation oncology and continues to push The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation for changes to the RO Model that will recognize these key outcomes.

Selection of Mediastinal Lymphoma Patients for Proton Therapy Within the Proton Collaborative Group Registry: Concordance With the ILROG Guidelines.

PURPOSE: As patients with mediastinal lymphoma are typically young with curable disease, advanced radiation techniques such as proton therapy are often considered to minimize subacute and late toxicity. However, it is unclear which mediastinal lymphoma patients are treated with proton therapy. Within a prospective, multi-institutional proton registry, we characterized mediastinal lymphoma patients treated with proton therapy and assessed concordance with consensus recommendations published in 2018 by the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group (ILROG). METHODS: Eligible patients included those with lymphoma of the mediastinum treated exclusively with proton therapy for whom digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) treatment data were available for review. Given the challenge with reliably visualizing the left mainstem coronary artery, the inferior-most aspect of the left pulmonary artery (PA) was used as a surrogate. Extent of disease was characterized as upper mediastinum (above level of left PA), middle mediastinum (below left PA but at or above level of T8), or low mediastinum (below T8). RESULTS: Between November 2012 and April 2019, 56 patients were treated and met inclusion criteria. Patients treated with proton therapy were young (median, 24 y; range: 12 to 88), with over half being female (55%). Patients were most commonly treated at initial diagnosis (86%) and had Hodgkin lymphoma (79%). Most patients (96%) had mediastinal disease that extended down to the level of the heart: 48% had middle and 48% had low mediastinal involvement. Nearly all patients (96%) met the ILROG consensus recommendations: 95% had lower mediastinal disease, 46% were young females, and 9% were heavily pretreated. Heart (mean) and lung dose (mean, V5, V20) were significantly associated with lowest extent of mediastinal disease. CONCLUSIONS: Mediastinal lymphoma patients treated with proton therapy are typically young with lower mediastinal involvement. Within a prospective, multi-institutional proton registry, nearly all treated patients fit the ILROG consensus recommendations regarding which mediastinal lymphoma patients may most benefit from proton therapy.

Risk of Pneumonitis and Outcomes After Mediastinal Proton Therapy for Relapsed/Refractory Lymphoma: A PTCOG and PCG Collaboration.

PURPOSE: Despite high response rates, there has been reluctance to use radiation therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) Hodgkin (HL) or aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) given concerns for subacute and late toxicities. Symptomatic pneumonitis, a subacute toxicity, has an incidence of 17% to 24% (≥grade 2) even with intensity modulated radiation therapy. Proton therapy (PT), which has no exit radiation dose, is associated with a lower dose to lung compared with other radiation techniques. As risk of radiation pneumonitis is associated with lung dose, we evaluated whether pneumonitis rates are lower with PT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Within an international, multi-institutional cohort, we retrospectively evaluated the incidence and grade of radiation pneumonitis (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4) among patients with r/r HL or NHL treated with PT. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients with r/r lymphoma (66% HL, 34% NHL; 46% primary chemorefractory) received thoracic PT from 2009 to 2017 in the consolidation (45%) or salvage (54%) setting. Median dose was 36 Gy(RBE). Before PT, patients underwent a median of 1 salvage systemic therapy (range, 0-4); 40% received PT within 4 months of transplant. With a median follow-up of 26.3 months among living patients, 11 patients developed symptomatic (grade 2) pneumonitis (12.8%). No grade 3 or higher pneumonitis was observed. Dose to lung, including mean lung dose, lung V5, and V20, significantly predicted risk of symptomatic pneumonitis, but not receipt of brentuximab, history of bleomycin toxicity, sex, or peritransplant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: PT for relapsed/refractory lymphoma was associated with favorable rates of pneumonitis compared with historical controls. We confirm that among patients treated with PT, pneumonitis risk is associated with mean lung and lung V20 dose. These findings highlight how advancements in radiation delivery may improve the therapeutic ratio for patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma. PT may be considered as a treatment modality for patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma in the consolidation or salvage setting.

Treatment interruptions affect biochemical failure rates in prostate cancer patients treated with proton beam therapy: Report from the multi-institutional proton collaborative group registry.

INTRODUCTION: To date, no studies examining the effect of treatment interruptions (TI) with proton beam therapy (PBT) have been published. The goal of our study was to determine the predictors of TI amongst patients with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with PBT and to determine whether TI are associated with biochemical failure (BF). We hypothesized that any correlation between TI and biochemical control would be more pronounced in high risk groups. METHODS: Data for 4278 patients with PCa was obtained from the prospectively collected Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) data registry. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis (MVA) was used to model possible predictors of BF. A subset analysis was performed for high risk patients treated with ADT and PBT. Finally, propensity score (PS) analysis was performed to account for any indication bias caused by lack of randomization. RESULTS: Total treatment duration (OR, 1.05 [1.04-1.06]; p < 0.001) increased the likelihood of TI on MVA. TI did not have a statistically significant correlation with BF (OR, 1.44 [0.86-2.39]; p = 0.162) amongst PS matched patients. However, on subset analyses of high risk group patients with PS matching, there was a trend towards worse BF in patients with TI (OR 3.85; 95%CI (0.96-15.44); p = 0.057). CONCLUSION: In the first analysis of its kind, the results suggest that TI in high risk PCa patients treated with PBT and ADT have worse BF rates. Interventions such as increased patient education, proper maintenance of proton facilities, and decreasing total treatment duration with alternative fractionation schedules may help avoid the unintended negative effects on tumor control due to TI. However, future analyses on a larger patient population is needed.