Barrier films or dressings for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Barrier films or dressings were reported to be effective in preventing radiation dermatitis (RD) in breast cancer patients, but their comparative efficacy is unknown. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL Registry of Clinical Trials from inception to October 20, 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing barrier films or dressings to the standard of care (SOC) or other interventions were included. We estimated summary odds ratios and mean differences using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023475021). RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. Six interventions were analysed: 3M™ Moisturizing Double Barrier Cream (MDBC), 3M™ No Sting Barrier Film (BF), Hydrofilm® (HF), Mepitel® Film (MF), Silver Leaf Nylon Dressing and StrataXRT®. HF, MF and StrataXRT® reduced the incidence of moist desquamation compared to SOC (HF: OR = 0.08; p = 0.02; MF: OR = 0.31 p < 0.01; StrataXRT®: OR = 0.22, p = 0.04). The ranking of agents from most to least effective in preventing moist desquamation according to P-scores was HF (92.5%), MF (78.5%), StrataXRT® (70.1%), BF (46.4%), Silver Leaf Nylon Dressing (24.9%), MDBC (22.9%) and SOC (14.7%). Only four RCTs on HF and MF included patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments that allowed pooling for analysis. HF and MF were more effective in reducing pain, itchiness and burning sensation compared to SOC (p < 0.01 for all symptoms). CONCLUSION: HF and MF were effective in preventing RD in breast cancer. Future RCTs should compare these interventions to effective cream preparations, such as topical corticosteroids.

Early effectiveness and toxicity outcomes of reirradiation after breast conserving surgery for recurrent or new primary breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Breast reirradiation (reRT) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) has emerged as a viable alternative to mastectomy for women presenting with recurrent or new primary breast cancer. There are limited data on safety of different fractionation regimens. This study reports safety and efficacy among women treated with repeat BCS and reRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients who underwent repeat BCS followed by RT from 2015 to 2021 at 2 institutions were analyzed. Univariate logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of acute and late toxicities. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to evaluate overall survival (OS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LR-RFS). RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were reviewed with median follow-up of 16 months (range: 3-60 months). At time of first recurrence, 41% had invasive carcinoma with a ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) component, 41% had invasive carcinoma alone and 18% had DCIS alone. All were clinically node negative. For the reirradiation course, 95% received partial breast irradiation (PBI) (57.5% with 1.5 Gy BID; 27% with 1.8 Gy daily; 10.5% with hypofractionation), and 5% received whole breast irradiation (1.8-2 Gy/fx), all of whom had received PBI for initial course. One patient experienced grade 3 fibrosis, and one patient experienced grade 3 telangiectasia. None had grade 4 or higher late adverse events. We found no association between the fractionation of the second course of RT or the cumulative dose (measured as EQD2) with acute or late toxicity. At 2 years, OS was 100%, DMFS was 91.6%, and LR-RFS was 100%. CONCLUSION: In this series of patients with recurrent or new primary breast cancer, a second breast conservation surgery followed by reirradiation was effective with no local recurrences and an acceptable toxicity profile across a range of available fractionation regimens at a median follow up of 16 months. Longer follow up is required.

Proton Therapy in Uveal Melanoma.

Background/Objectives: Uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults. Treatment options for localized, early-stage disease include enucleation, brachytherapy, and proton beam therapy. This review aims to evaluate the role of proton therapy in the definitive management of uveal melanoma, focusing on its physics, radiobiology, treatment techniques, and associated outcomes. Methods: This narrative review synthesizes current literature on proton therapy for uveal melanoma, emphasizing case selection, treatment efficacy, and side effects. Results: Proton therapy offers significant advantages for thicker uveal melanomas (over 8 mm) due to its unique physical properties, including a rapid dose fall-off that protects critical structures like the retina and optic nerve. Proton therapy may have benefits in tumor control for ocular melanomas given its increased relative biological effectiveness relative to photon therapy for these typically more radioresistant melanomas. Proton therapy may also hold special value for uveal melanomas in close proximity to the optic nerve, as patients are at high risk of visual toxicities with brachytherapy. The review discusses the efficacy of proton therapy across small, medium, and large tumors, along with strategies for improving patient survival through combined systemic therapy. Additionally, the potential of ocular reirradiation with proton therapy is addressed. Conclusions: Proton therapy is an effective treatment for uveal melanoma. It offers advantages over brachytherapy for large tumors, tumors that are close to the optic nerve or insertion of extra-ocular muscles.

Differences in Patterns of Care and Referral Between Proton and Photon Therapy.

Purpose: To report demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who were more likely to receive proton beam therapy (PBT) than photon therapy from facilities with access to proton centers. Materials and Methods: We utilized the national cancer database to identify the facilities with access to PBT between 2004 and 2015 and compared the relative usage of photons and PBT for demographic and clinical scenarios in breast, prostate, and nonsmall cell cancer. Results: In total, 231 facilities with access to proton centers accounted for 168 323 breast, 39 975 lung, and 77 297 prostate cancer patients treated definitively. Proton beam therapy was used in 0.5%, 1.5%, and 8.9% of breast, lung, and prostate cases. Proton beam therapy was correlated with a farther distance traveled and longer start time from diagnosis for each site (P < .05).For breast, demographic correlates of PBT were treatment in the west coast (odds ratio [OR] = 4.81), age <60 (OR = 1.25), white race (OR = 1.94), and metropolitan area (OR = 1.58). Left-sided cancers (OR = 1.28), N2 (OR = 1.71), non-ER+/PR+/Her2Neu- cancers (OR = 1.24), accelerated partial breast irradiation (OR = 1.98), and hypofractionation (OR = 2.35) were predictors of PBT.For nonsmall cell cancer, demographic correlates of PBT were treatment in the south (OR = 2.6), metropolitan area (OR = 1.72), and Medicare insurance (OR = 1.64). Higher comorbid score (OR = 1.36), later year treated (OR = 3.16), and hypofractionation (not SBRT) (OR = 3.7) were predictors of PBT.For prostate, correlates of PBT were treatment in the west coast (OR = 2.48), age <70 (OR = 1.19), white race (OR = 1.41), metropolitan area (OR = 1.25), higher income/education (OR = 1.25), and treatment at an academic center (OR = 33.94). Lower comorbidity score (OR = 1.42), later year treated (OR = 1.37), low-risk disease (OR = 1.45), definitive compared to postoperative (OR = 6.10), and conventional fractionation (OR = 1.64) were predictors of PBT. Conclusion: Even for facilities with established referrals to proton centers, PBT utilization was low; socioeconomic status was potentially a factor. Proton beam therapy was more often used with left-sided breast and low-risk prostate cancers, without a clear clinical pattern in lung cancer.

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.

Prognostic implications of HER2NEU-low in metastatic breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We explored characteristics and clinical outcomes of HER2-negative and HER2-low metastatic breast cancers using real-world data. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify MBC patients that were HER2-low or HER2-negative per immunohistochemical staining. A binomial regression analysis identified demographic and clinical correlates of each subtype. A Cox multivariable regression analysis (MVA) and propensity-match analysis were performed to identify correlates of survival. RESULTS: Excluding missing data, 24,636 MBC patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2015 were identified; 27.9% were HER2-negative and 72.1% were HER2-low. There were no relevant demographic differences between the groups. HER2-low tumors were half as likely to have concomitant hormone receptor-positive status (p < 0.01). The 3-year survival rate among hormone receptor-negative patients was 33.8% for HER2-low and 32.2% for HER2-negative (p < 0.05), and 60.9% and 55.6% in HER2-low and HER2-negative cases among hormone receptor-positive patients (p < 0.05), respectively. HER2-low cases were associated with better survival on MVA (HR =0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99) and remained superior with propensity-matching (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.96). In a subset analysis isolated to hormone receptor-positive cases, HER2-low remained correlated with improved survival (HR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.98) with propensity-matched MVA. Correlates of worse survival include older age as a continuous variable (HR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.02-1.02) and Black race (HR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.20-1.32) [all p < 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest such analysis performed to date, our study demonstrates a small but statistically significant association with improved survival for HER2-low tumors compared to HER2-negative tumors in MBC.

A Novel Dose Rate Optimization Method to Maximize Ultrahigh-Dose-Rate Coverage of Critical Organs at Risk Without Compromising Dosimetry Metrics in Proton Pencil Beam Scanning FLASH Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate a dose rate optimization framework based on the spot-scanning patterns to improve ultrahigh-dose-rate coverage of critical organs at risk (OARs) for proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) FLASH radiation therapy (ultrahigh dose-rate (often referred to as >40 Gy per second) delivery) and present implementation of a genetic algorithm (GA) method for spot sequence optimization to achieve PBS FLASH dose rate optimization under relatively low nozzle beam currents. METHODS AND MATERIALS: First, a multifield FLASH plan was developed to meet all the dosimetric goals and optimal FLASH dose rate coverage by considering the deliverable minimum monitor unit constraint. Then, a GA method was implemented into the in-house treatment platform to maximize the dose rate by exploring the best spot delivery sequence. A phantom study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the dose rate optimization. Then, 10 consecutive plans for patients with lung cancer previously treated using PBS intensity-modulated proton therapy were optimized using 45 GyRBE in 3 fractions for both transmission and Bragg peak FLASH radiation therapy for further validation. The spot delivery sequence of each treatment field was optimized using this GA. The ultrahigh-dose-rate-volume histogram and dose rate coverage V40GyRBE/s were investigated to assess the efficacy of dose rate optimization quantitatively. RESULTS: Using a relatively low monitor unit/spot of 150, corresponding to a nozzle beam current of 65 nA, the FLASH dose rate ratio V40GyRBE/s of the OAR contour of the core was increased from 0% to ∼60% in the phantom study. In the patients with lung cancer, the ultrahigh-dose-rate coverage V40GyRBE/s was improved from 15.2%, 15.5%, 17.6%, and 16.0% before the delivery sequence optimization to 31.8%, 43.5%, 47.6%, and 30.5% after delivery sequence optimization in the lungs-GTV (gross tumor volume), spinal cord, esophagus, and heart (for all, P < .001). When the beam current increased to 130 nA, V40GyRBE/s was improved from 45.1%, 47.1%, 51.2%, and 51.4% to 65.3%, 83.5%, 88.1%, and 69.4% (P < .05). The averaged V40GyRBE/s for the target and OARs increased from 12.9% to 41.6% and 46.3% to 77.5% for 65 and 130 nA, respectively, showing significant improvements based on a clinical proton system. After optimizing the dose rate for the Bragg peak FLASH technique with a beam current of 340 nA, the V40GyRBE/s values for the lung GTV, spinal cord, esophagus, and heart were increased by 8.9%, 15.8%, 22%, and 20.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: An optimal plan quality can be maintained as the spot delivery sequence optimization is a separate independent process after the plan optimization. Both the phantom and patient results demonstrated that novel spot delivery sequence optimization can effectively improve the ultrahigh-dose-rate coverage for critical OARs, which can potentially be applied in clinical practice for better OARs-sparing efficacy.

The Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence ChatGPT in Oncology Examination Questions.

The aim of this study is to assess the accuracy of Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) in response to oncology examination questions in the setting of one-shot learning. Consecutive national radiation oncology in-service multiple-choice examinations were collected and inputted into ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 3.5 to determine ChatGPT's answers. ChatGPT's answers were then compared with the answer keys to determine whether ChatGPT correctly or incorrectly answered each question and to determine if improvements in responses were seen with the newer ChatGPT version. A total of 600 consecutive questions were inputted into ChatGPT. ChatGPT 4o answered 72.2% questions correctly, whereas 3.5 answered 53.8% questions correctly. There was a significant difference in performance by question category (P < .01). ChatGPT performed poorer with respect to knowledge of landmark studies and treatment recommendations and planning. ChatGPT is a promising technology, with the latest version showing marked improvement. Although it still has limitations, with further evolution, it may be considered a reliable resource for medical training and decision making in the oncology space.

Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation for HER2-Positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer historically exhibited the most adverse local outcomes and, consequently, has had limited representation among trials of partial breast irradiation (PBI). We hypothesized that with contemporary HER2-targeted agents, patients may now exhibit excellent disease control outcomes after adjuvant PBI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using a prospectively maintained institutional database, we identified patients with HER2+ breast cancer treated with breast conserving surgery (BCS) and PBI from 2000 to 2022. Salient clinicopathologic and treatment parameters were collected. All patients received external beam PBI to 40 Gy in 10 daily fractions. Cumulative incidence functions were calculated to estimate the incidence of local recurrence (LR) with the competing risk of death. RESULTS: We identified 1248 patients who underwent PBI at our institution, of whom the study cohort comprised 52 (4%) with HER2+ breast cancer (median age, 64 years; range, 44-87). Nearly all had T1 tumors (98%; median size, 12 mm [range, 1-21 mm]). Most had estrogen receptor positive disease (88%), and all patients had negative surgical margins. Nearly all underwent sentinel node biopsy (94%), with the remainder undergoing no surgical axillary evaluation. Forty-two (81%) received chemotherapy; 40 (77%), hormone therapy; and 42 (81%), HER2-directed therapy, most commonly trastuzumab. At 143.8 person-years of follow-up (range, 7-226 months for each patient), we observed 2 LR events at 14 and 26 months, respectively, yielding a 2-year LR rate of 3.8%. No regional or distant recurrences were observed, nor were any breast-specific mortality events. Two deaths were observed, both without evidence of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Among a cohort of patients with HER2+ early-stage breast cancer managed with BCS and PBI, we observed a 2-year LR rate of 3.8%, with no regional or distant recurrences and excellent overall survival. These findings require confirmation with longer follow-up among larger cohorts but appear consistent with the excellent results of contemporary randomized trials of PBI unselected for HER2 status.

Prospective evaluation of patient-reported outcomes of invisible ink tattoos for the delivery of external beam radiation therapy: the PREFER trial.

Introduction: Invisible ink tattoos (IITs) avoid cosmetic permanence of visible ink tattoos (VITs) while serving as more reliable landmarks for radiation setup than tattooless setups. This trial evaluated patient-reported preference and feasibility of IIT implementation. Methods and materials: In an IRB-approved, single institution, prospective trial, patients receiving proton therapy underwent IIT-based treatment setup. A survey tool assessed patient preference on tattoos using a Likert scale. Matched patients treated using our institutional standard tattooless setup were identified; treatment times and image guidance requirements were evaluated between tattooless and IIT-based alignment approaches. Distribution differences were estimated using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests or Chi-square tests. Results: Of 94 eligible patients enrolled, median age was 58 years, and 58.5% were female. Most common treatment sites were breast (18.1%), lung (17.0%) and pelvic (14.9%). Patients preferred to receive IITs versus VITs (79.8% pre-treatment and 75.5% post-treatment, respectively). Patients were willing to travel farther from home to avoid VITs versus IITs (p<0.01). Females were willing to travel (45.5% vs. 23.1%; p=0.04) and pay additional money to avoid VITs (34.5% vs. 5.1%; p<0.01). Per-fraction average +treatment time and time from on table/in room to first beam were shorter with IIT-based vs. tattooless setup (12.3min vs. 14.1min; p=0.04 and 24.1min vs. 26.2min; p=0.02, respectively). Discussion: In the largest prospective trial on IIT-based radiotherapy setup to date, we found that patients prefer IITs to VITs. Additionally, IIT-based alignment is an effective and efficient strategy in comparison with tattooless setup. Standard incorporation of IITs for patient setup should be strongly considered.

PTCOG international survey of practice patterns and trends in utilization of proton therapy for breast cancer.

Purpose/objectives: The indications, techniques, and extent to which proton beam therapy (PBT) is employed for breast cancer are unknown. We seek to determine PBT utilization for breast cancer. Materials/methods: The Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group (PTCOG) Breast Subcommittee developed an IRB-approved 29-question survey and sent it to breast cancer radiation oncologists at all active PBT centers worldwide in June 2023. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses, and comparisons by continent were performed using Fisher's exact tests. Results: Of 79 surveys distributed, 28 recipients submitted responses (35 % response rate) representing fifteen U.S., 8 European, and 5 Asian centers (continent response rate 50 %, 38 %, and 18 %, respectively). Overall, 93 % reported treating breast cancer patients with PBT; 13 (50 %) have treated ≥100 breast cancer patients at their center since opening. Most (89 %) have pencil beam scanning technology. Nearly half (46 %) use moderate hypofractionation (15-20 fractions) for regional nodal irradiation and 42 % conventional fractionation (25-30 fractions). More European centers prefer hypofractionation (88 %) vs. Asian (50 %) and U.S. (21 %) centers (p = 0.003). Common patient selection methods were practitioner determination/patient preference (n = 16) and comparative plan evaluation (n = 15). U.S. centers reported the most experience with breast PBT, with 71 % having treated ≥100 breast cancer patients vs. 38 % in Europe and none in Asia (p = 0.001). Of respondent centers, 39 % enrolled ≥75 % of breast PBT patients on a research study. Conclusion: Utilization, patient selection methods, and dose-fractionation approaches for breast cancer PBT vary worldwide. These survey data serve as a benchmark from which successor surveys can provide insight on practice pattern evolution.

Comparative Evaluation of Proton Therapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Brachial Plexus Sparing in the Comprehensive Reirradiation of High-Risk Recurrent Breast Cancer.

Purpose: Recurrent or new primary breast cancer requiring comprehensive regional nodal irradiation after prior radiation therapy (RT) to the supraclavicular area and upper axilla is challenging due to cumulative brachial plexus (BP) dose tolerance. We assessed BP dose sparing achieved with pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBS-PT) and photon volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods and Materials: In an institutional review board-approved planning study, all patients with ipsilateral recurrent breast cancer treated with PBS-PT re-RT (PBT1) with at least partial BP overlap from prior photon RT were identified. Comparative VMAT plans (XRT1) using matched BP dose constraints were developed. A second pair of proton (PBT2) and VMAT (XRT2) plans using standardized target volumes were created, applying uniform prescription dose of 50.4 per 1.8 Gy and a maximum BP constraint <25 Gy. Incidence of brachial plexopathy was also assessed. Results: Ten consecutive patients were identified. Median time between RT courses was 48 months (15-276). Median first, second, and cumulative RT doses were 50.4 Gy (range, 42.6-60.0), 50.4 Gy relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) (45.0-64.4), and 102.4 Gy (RBE) (95.0-120.0), respectively. Median follow-up was 15 months (5-33) and 18 months for living patients (11-33) Mean BP max was 37.5 Gy (RBE) for PBT1 and 36.9 Gy for XRT1. Target volume coverage of V85% (volume receiving 85% of prescription dose), V90%, and V95% were numerically lower for XRT1 versus PBT1. Similarly, axilla I-III and supraclavicular area coverage were significantly higher for PBT2 than XRT2 at dose levels of V55%, V65%, V75%, V85%, and V95%. Only axilla I V55% did not reach significance (P = .06) favoring PBS-PT. Two patients with high cumulative BPmax (95.2 Gy [RBE], 101.6 Gy [RBE]) developed brachial plexopathy symptoms with ulnar nerve distribution neuropathy without pain or weakness (1 of 2 had symptom resolution after 6 months without intervention). Conclusions: PBS-PT improved BP sparing and target volume coverage versus VMAT. For patients requiring comprehensive re-RT for high-risk, nonmetastatic breast cancer recurrence with BP overlap and reasonable expectation for prolonged life expectancy, PBT may be the preferred treatment modality.

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.

Whole Abdominal Pencil Beam Scanned Proton FLASH Increases Acute Lethality.

PURPOSE: Ultrahigh dose-rate FLASH radiation therapy has emerged as a modality that promises to reduce normal tissue toxicity while maintaining tumor control. Previous studies of gastrointestinal toxicity using passively scattered FLASH proton therapy (PRT) have, however, yielded mixed results, suggesting that the requirements for gastrointestinal sparing by FLASH are an open question. Furthermore, the more clinically relevant pencil beam scanned (PBS) FLASH PRT has not yet been assessed in this context, despite differences in the spatiotemporal dose-rate distributions compared with passively scattered PRT. Here, to our knowledge, we provide the first report on the effects of PBS FLASH PRT on acute gastrointestinal injury in mice after whole abdominal irradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Whole abdominal irradiation was performed on C57BL/6J mice using the entrance channel of the Bragg curve of a 250 MeV PBS proton beam at field-averaged dose rates of 0.6 Gy/s for conventional (CONV) and 80 to 100 Gy/s for FLASH PRT. A 2D strip ionization chamber array was used to measure the dose and dose rate for each mouse. Survival was assessed at 14 Gy. Intestines were harvested and processed as Swiss rolls for analysis using a novel artificial intelligence-based crypt assay to quantify crypt regeneration 4 days after irradiation. RESULTS: Survival was significantly reduced after 14 Gy FLASH PRT compared with CONV (P < .001). Our artificial intelligence-based crypt assays demonstrated no significant difference in intestinal crypts/cm or crypt depth between groups 4 days after irradiation. Furthermore, we found no significant difference in 5-ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine+ cells/crypt or Olfactomedin4+ intestinal stem cells with FLASH relative to CONV PRT. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our data demonstrate significantly impaired survival after abdominal PBS FLASH PRT without apparent differences in intestinal histology 4 days after irradiation.

The Potential and Challenges of Proton FLASH in Head and Neck Cancer Reirradiation.

Ultrahigh-dose-rate therapy, also known as FLASH radiotherapy (RT), is an emerging technique that is garnering significant interest in cancer treatment due to its potential to revolutionize therapy. This method can achieve comparable tumor control to conventional-dose-rate RT while offering the enhanced protection of normal tissue through the FLASH-sparing effect. This innovative technique has demonstrated promising results in preclinical studies involving animals and cell lines. Particularly noteworthy is its potential application in treating head and neck (HN) cancers, especially in patients with challenging recurrent tumors and reirradiation cases, where the toxicity rates with conventional radiotherapy are high. Such applications aim to enhance tumor control while minimizing side effects and preserving patients' quality of life. In comparison to electron or photon FLASH modalities, proton therapy has demonstrated superior dosimetric and delivery characteristics and is a safe and effective FLASH treatment for human malignancies. Compared to the transmission proton FLASH, single-energy Bragg peak FLASH is a novel delivery method that allows highly conformal doses to targets and minimal radiation doses to crucial OARs. Proton Bragg peak FLASH for HN cancer has still not been well studied. This review highlights the significance of proton FLASH in enhancing cancer therapy by examining the advantages and challenges of using it for HN cancer reirradiation.

Randomised controlled trials on radiation dose fractionation in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis with emphasis on side effects and cosmesis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive assessment of various fractionation schemes in radiation therapy for breast cancer, with a focus on side effects, cosmesis, quality of life, risks of recurrence, and survival outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to 23 October 2023). STUDY SELECTION: Included studies were randomised controlled trials focusing on conventional fractionation (CF; daily fractions of 1.8-2 Gy, reaching a total dose of 50-50.4 Gy over 5-6 weeks), moderate hypofractionation (MHF; fraction sizes of 2.65-3.3 Gy for 13-16 fractions over 3-5 weeks), and/or ultra-hypofractionation (UHF; schedule of only 5 fractions). DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent investigators screened studies and extracted data. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach, respectively. DATA SYNTHESIS: Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was analysed using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistic. Network meta-analysis was used to integrate all available evidence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The pre-specified primary outcome was grade ≥2 acute radiation dermatitis and late radiation therapy related side effects; secondary outcomes included cosmesis, quality of life, recurrence, and survival metrics. RESULTS: From 1754 studies, 59 articles representing 35 trials (20 237 patients) were assessed; 21.6% of outcomes showed low risk of bias, whereas 78.4% had some concerns or high risk, particularly in outcome measurement (47.4%). The RR for grade ≥2 acute radiation dermatitis for MHF compared with CF was 0.54 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.61; P<0.001) and 0.68 (0.49 to 0.93; P=0.02) following breast conserving therapy and mastectomy, respectively. Hyperpigmentation and grade ≥2 breast shrinkage were less frequent after MHF than after CF, with RRs of 0.77 (0.62 to 0.95; P=0.02) and 0.92 (0.85 to 0.99; P=0.03), respectively, in the combined breast conserving therapy and mastectomy population. However, in the breast conserving therapy only trials, these differences in hyperpigmentation (RR 0.79, 0.60 to 1.03; P=0.08) and breast shrinkage (0.94, 0.83 to 1.07; P=0.35) were not statistically significant. The RR for grade ≥2 acute radiation dermatitis for UHF compared with MHF was 0.85 (0.47 to 1.55; P=0.60) for breast conserving therapy and mastectomy patients combined. MHF was associated with improved cosmesis and quality of life compared with CF, whereas data on UHF were less conclusive. Survival and recurrence outcomes were similar between UHF, MHF, and CF. CONCLUSIONS: MHF shows improved safety profile, cosmesis, and quality of life compared with CF while maintaining equivalent oncological outcomes. Fewer randomised controlled trials have compared UHF with other fractionation schedules, but its safety and oncological effectiveness seem to be similar with short term follow-up. Given the advantages of reduced treatment time, enhanced convenience for patients, and potential cost effectiveness, MHF and UHF should be considered as preferred options over CF in appropriate clinical settings, with further research needed to solidify these findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023460249.

Advances and Challenges in Conducting Clinical Trials With Proton Beam Therapy.

Advances in proton therapy have garnered much attention and speculation in recent years as the indications for proton therapy have grown beyond pediatric, prostate, spine, and ocular tumors. To achieve and maintain consistent access to this cancer treatment and to ensure the future viability and availability of proton centers in the United States, a call for evidence has been heard and answered by proton radiation oncologists. Answers provided in this review include the evolution of proton therapy research, rationale for proton clinical trial design, challenges in and barriers to the conduct of proton therapy research, and other unique considerations for the study of proton therapy.

Different Re-Irradiation Techniques after Breast-Conserving Surgery for Recurrent or New Primary Breast Cancer.

Breast re-irradiation (reRT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) using external beam radiation is an increasingly used salvage approach for women presenting with recurrent or new primary breast cancer. However, radiation technique, dose and fractionation as well as eligibility criteria differ between studies. There is also limited data on efficacy and safety of external beam hypofractionation and accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) regimens. This paper reviews existing retrospective and prospective data for breast reRT after BCS, APBI reRT outcomes and delivery at our institution and the need for a randomized controlled trial using shorter courses of radiation to better define patient selection for different reRT fractionation regimens.

Effect of treatment interruptions on overall survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, there are no data regarding the impact of treatment interruptions during radiotherapy for breast cancer. In this study, we examine the correlation between treatment interruptions during radiotherapy and outcomes in triple-negative breast cancer patients. METHODS: A total of 35 845 patients with triple-negative breast cancer treated between 2010 and 2014 were identified and analyzed from the National Cancer Database. The number of interrupted radiotherapy treatment days was calculated as the difference between the total elapsed days from the start to end of radiation treatment (both initial treatment and boost treatment, when boost was administered) and the total number of expected treatment days, defined as the number of expected treatment days with an addition of 2 weekend days for every multiple of 5 treatment days. Binomial multivariate regression analysis was used to detect correlates of treatment interruptions, and propensity-score matched multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the association between treatment interruption and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: When modeled as a continuous variable, longer treatment duration was associated with poorer OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.023, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.015 to 1.031). In reference to 0-1 days of interruption, patients with 2-5 interrupted days (HR = 1.069, 95% CI = 1.002 to 1.140 interrupted days), 6-10 interrupted days (HR = 1.239, 95% CI = 1.140 to 1.348 interrupted days), and 11-15 interrupted days (HR = 1.265, 95% CI = 1.126 to 1.431 interrupted days) experienced increasing likelihood of mortality. CONCLUSION: In the first study of its kind, we report a correlation between treatment interruptions during adjuvant radiotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer and OS.

Case Report: Cumulative proton dose reconstruction using CBCT-based synthetic CT for interfraction metallic port variability in breast tissue expanders.

Introduction: Dose perturbation of spot-scanning proton beams passing through a dislocated metallic port (MP) of a breast tissue expander may degrade target dose coverage or deliver excess dose to the ipsilateral lung and heart. The feasibility of utilizing daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based synthetic CTs (synCTs) for dose reconstruction was evaluated, and the fractional and cumulative dosimetric impact due to daily MP dislocation is reported. Methods: The synCT was generated by deforming the simulation CT to daily CBCT. The MP structure template was mapped onto all CTs on the basis of daily MP position. Proton treatment plans were generated with two and three fields on the planned CT (pCT, Plan A) and the first verification CT (vCT, Plan B), respectively, for a fractional dose of 1.8 Gy(RBE). Plan A and Plan B were used alternatively, as determined by the daily MP position. The reconstructed fractional doses were calculated with corresponding plans and synCTs, and the cumulative doses were summed with the rigid or deformed fractional doses on pCT and vCT. Results: The planned and reconstructed fractional dose demonstrated a low-dose socket around the planned MP position due to the use of field-specific targets (FSTs). Dose hot spots with >120% of the prescription due to MP dislocation were found behind the planned MP position on most reconstructed fractional doses. The reconstructed cumulative dose shows two low-dose sockets around the two planned MP positions reflecting the two plans used. The doses at the hot spots behind the planned MPs averaged out to 114% of the prescription. The cumulative D95% of the CTV_Chest Wall decreased by up to 2.4% and 4.0%, and the cumulative V20Gy(RBE) of the left lung decreased to 16.1% and 16.8% on pCT and vCT, respectively. The cumulative Dmean of the heart decreased to as low as 0.7 Gy(RBE) on pCT but increased to as high as 1.6 Gy(RBE) on vCT. Conclusion: The robustness of proton plans using FSTs around the magnet in the MP of the tissue expander can be improved by applying multiple fields and plans, which provides forgiveness of dose heterogeneity incurred from dislocation of high-Z materials in this single case.