RESUMO
Objectives: Proton therapy has a theoretical dosimetric advantage due to the Bragg peak, but the linear energy transfer (LET), and therefore the relative biological effectiveness (RBE), increase at the end of range. For patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, the distal edge of beam is often located within or close to the heart, where elevated RBE would be of potential concern. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of RBE and the choice of beam arrangement for adolescent patients with mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma. Methods: For three previously treated adolescent patients, proton plans with 1-3 fields were created to a prescribed dose of 19.8 Gy (RBE) in 11 fractions (Varian Eclipse v13.7), assuming an RBE of 1.1. Plans were recalculated using Monte-Carlo (Geant4 v10.3.3/Gate v8.1) to calculate dose-averaged LET. Variable RBE-weighted dose was calculated using the McNamara model, assuming an α/ß ratio of 2 Gy for organs-at-risk. Results: Although the LET decreased as the number of fields increased, the difference in RBE-weighted dose (Δdose) to organs-at-risk did not consistently decrease. Δdose values varied by patient and organ and were mostly of the order of 0-3 Gy (RBE), with a worst-case of 4.75 Gy (RBE) in near-maximum dose to the left atrium for one plan. Conclusions: RBE-weighted doses to organs-at-risk are sensitive to the choice of RBE model, which is of particular concern for the heart. Advances in knowledge: There is a need to remain cautious when evaluating proton plans for Hodgkin lymphoma, especially when near-maximum doses to organs-at-risk are considered.
RESUMO
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.