Patients' needs in proton therapy: A survey among ten European facilities.

Aims: The number of Proton Therapy (PT) facilities is still limited worldwide, and the access to treatment could be characterized by patients' logistic and economic challenges. Aim of the present survey is to assess the support provided to patients undergoing PT across Europe. Methods: Through a personnel contact, an online questionnaire (62 multiple-choice and open-ended questions) via Microsoft Forms was administered to 10 European PT centers. The questionnaire consisted of 62 questions divided into 6 sections: i) personal data; ii) general information on clinical activity; iii) fractionation, concurrent systemic treatments and technical aspects of PT facility; iv) indication to PT and reimbursement policies; v) economic and/ or logistic support to patients vi) participants agreement on statements related to the possible limitation of access to PT. A qualitative analysis was performed and reported. Results: From March to May 2022 all ten involved centers filled the survey. Nine centers treat from 100 to 500 patients per year. Paediatric patients accounted for 10-30%, 30-50% and 50-70% of the entire cohort for 7, 2 and 1 center, respectively. The most frequent tumours treated in adult population were brain tumours, sarcomas and head and neck carcinomas; in all centers, the mean duration of PT is longer than 3 weeks. In 80% of cases, the treatment reimbursement for PT is supplied by the respective country's Health National System (HNS). HNS also provides economic support to patients in 70% of centers, while logistic and meal support is provided in 20% and 40% of centers, respectively. PT facilities offer economic and/or logistic support in 90% of the cases. Logistic support for parents of pediatric patients is provided by HNS only in one-third of centers. Overall, 70% of respondents agree that geographic challenges could limit a patient's access to proton facilities and 60% believe that additional support should be given to patients referred for PT care. Conclusions: Relevant differences exist among European countries in supporting patients referred to PT in their logistic and economic challenges. Further efforts should be made by HNSs and PT facilities to reduce the risk of inequities in access to cancer care with protons.

Consolidative active scanning proton therapy for mediastinal lymphoma: selection criteria, treatment implementation and clinical feasibility.

AIMS: Proton therapy (PT) represents an advanced form of radiotherapy with unique physical properties which could be of great advantage in reducing long-term radiation morbidity for cancer survivors. Here, we aim to describe the whole process leading to the clinical implementation of consolidative active scanning proton therapy treatment (PT) for mediastinal lymphoma. METHODS: The process included administrative, technical and clinical issues. Authorization of PT is required in all cases as mediastinal lymphoma is currently not on the list of diseases reimbursable by the Italian National Health Service. Technically, active scanning PT treatment for mediastinal lymphoma is complex, due to the interaction between actively scanned protons and the usually irregular and large volumes to be irradiated, the nearby healthy tissues and the target motion caused by breathing. A road map to implement the technical procedures was prepared. The clinical selection of patients was of utmost importance and took into account both patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: The first mediastinal lymphoma was treated at our PT center in 2018, four years after the start of the clinical activities. The treatment technique implementation included mechanical deep inspiration breath-hold simulation computed tomography (CT), clinical target volume (CTV)-based multifield optimization planning and plan robustness analysis. The ultimate authorization rate was 93%. In 4 cases a proton-photon plan comparison was required. Between May 2018 and February, 2021, 14 patients were treated with consolidative PT. The main clinical reasons for choosing PT over photons was a bulky disease in 8 patients (57%), patient's age in 11 patients (78%) and the proximity of the lymphoma to cardiac structures in 10 patients (71%). With a median follow-up of 15 months (range, 1-33 months) all patients but one (out-of-field relapse) are without evidence of disease, all are alive and no late toxicities were observed during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical implementation of consolidative active scanning PT for mediastinal lymphoma required specific technical procedures and a prolonged experience with PT treatments. An accurate selection of patients for which PT could be of advantage in comparison with photons is mandatory.

Experimental verification of IMPT treatment plans in an anthropomorphic phantom in the presence of delivery uncertainties.

Clinically relevant intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans were measured in a newly developed anthropomorphic phantom (i) to assess plan accuracy in the presence of high heterogeneity and (ii) to measure plan robustness in the case of treatment uncertainties (range and spatial). The new phantom consists of five different tissue substitute materials simulating different tissue types and was cut into sagittal planes so as to facilitate the verification of co-planar proton fields. GafChromic films were positioned in the different planes of the phantom, and 3D-IMPT and distal edge tracking (DET) plans were delivered to a volume simulating a skull base chordoma. In addition, treatments planned on CTs of the phantom with HU units modified were delivered to simulate systematic range uncertainties (range-error treatments). Finally, plans were delivered with the phantom rotated to simulate spatial errors. Results show excellent agreement between the calculated and the measured dose distribution: >99% and 98% of points with a gamma value <1 (3%/3 mm) for the 3D-IMPT and the DET plan, respectively. For both range and spatial errors, the 3D-IMPT plan was more robust than the DET plan. Both plans were more robust to range than to the spatial uncertainties. Finally, for range error treatments, measured distributions were compared to a model for predicting delivery errors in the treatment planning system. Good agreement has been found between the model and the measurements for both types of IMPT plan.