Proton therapy for prostate cancer: current state and future perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Localized prostate cancer can be treated with several radiotherapeutic approaches. Proton therapy (PT) can precisely target tumors, thus sparing normal tissues and reducing side-effects without sacrificing cancer control. However, PT is a costly treatment compared with conventional photon radiotherapy, which may undermine its overall efficacy. In this review, we summarize current data on the dosimetric rationale, clinical benefits, and cost of PT for prostate cancer. METHODS: An extensive literature review of PT for prostate cancer was performed with emphasis on studies investigating dosimetric advantage, clinical outcomes, cost-effective strategies, and novel technology trends. RESULTS: PT is safe, and its efficacy is comparable to that of standard photon-based therapy or brachytherapy. Data on gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and sexual function toxicity profiles are conflicting; however, PT is associated with a low risk of second cancer and has no effects on testosterone levels. Regarding cost-effectiveness, PT is suboptimal, although evolving trends in radiation delivery and construction of PT centers may help reduce the cost. CONCLUSION: PT has several advantages over conventional photon radiotherapy, and novel approaches may increase its efficacy and safety. Large prospective randomized trials comparing photon therapy with proton-based treatments are ongoing and may provide data on the differences in efficacy, toxicity profile, and quality of life between proton- and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: PT provides excellent physical advantages and has a superior dose profile compared with X-ray radiotherapy. Further evidence from clinical trials and research studies will clarify the role of PT in the treatment of prostate cancer, and facilitate the implementation of PT in a more accessible, affordable, efficient, and safe way.

Optimizing oropharyngeal cancer management by using proton beam therapy: trends of cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a new-emerging cancer treatment in China but its treatment costs are high and not yet covered by Chinese public medical insurance. The advanced form of PBT, intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT), has been confirmed to reduce normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) as compared to conventional intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). Herein, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness and applicability of IMPT versus IMRT for OPC patients in China, aiming at guiding the proper use of PBT. METHODS: A 7-state Markov model was designed for analysis. Base-case evaluation was performed on a 56-year-old (median age of OPC in China) patient under the assumption that IMPT could provide a 25% NTCP-reduction in long-term symptomatic dysphagia and xerostomia. Model robustness was examined using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, cohort analysis, and tornado diagram. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify the cost-effective scenarios. IMPT was considered as cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below the societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. RESULTS: Compared with IMRT, IMPT provided an extra 0.205 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at an additional cost of 34,926.6 US dollars ($), and had an ICER of $170,082.4/ QALY for the base case. At the current WTP of China ($33,558 / QALY) and a current IMPT treatment costs of $50,000, IMPT should provide a minimum NTCP-reduction of 47.5, 50.8, 55.6, 63.3 and 77.2% to be considered cost-effective for patient age levels of 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50-year-old, respectively. For patients at the median age level, reducing the current IMPT costs ($50,000) to a $30,000 level would make the minimum NTCP-reduction threshold for "cost-effective" decrease from 91.4 to 44.6%, at the current WTP of China (from 69.0 to 33.5%, at a WTP of $50,000 / QALY; and from 39.7 to 19.1%, at a WTP of $100,000 / QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effective scenarios of PBT exist in Chinese OPC patients at the current WTP of China. Considering a potential upcoming increase in PBT use in China, such cost-effective scenarios may further expand if a decrease of proton treatment costs occurs or an increase of WTP level.

Future technological developments in proton therapy - A predicted technological breakthrough.

In the current spectrum of cancer treatments, despite high costs, a lack of robust evidence based on clinical outcomes or technical and radiobiological uncertainties, particle therapy and in particular proton therapy (PT) is rapidly growing. Despite proton therapy being more than fifty years old (first proposed by Wilson in 1946) and more than 220,000 patients having been treated with in 2020, many technological challenges remain and numerous new technical developments that must be integrated into existing systems. This article presents an overview of on-going technical developments and innovations that we felt were most important today, as well as those that have the potential to significantly shape the future of proton therapy. Indeed, efforts have been done continuously to improve the efficiency of a PT system, in terms of cost, technology and delivery technics, and a number of different developments pursued in the accelerator field will first be presented. Significant developments are also underway in terms of transport and spatial resolution achievable with pencil beam scanning, or conformation of the dose to the target: we will therefore discuss beam focusing and collimation issues which are important parameters for the development of these techniques, as well as proton arc therapy. State of the art and alternative approaches to adaptive PT and the future of adaptive PT will finally be reviewed. Through these overviews, we will finally see how advances in these different areas will allow the potential for robust dose shaping in proton therapy to be maximised, probably foreshadowing a future era of maturity for the PT technique.

Head and neck proton therapy in France: A missed opportunity or a challenge in front of us?

Following major advances of the best of photon-techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and, to arrive soon, magnetic resonance (MR)-linac radiotherapy, there are still substantial opportunities in the treatment of head and neck cancers to further reduce the toxicity burden. Proton therapy represents another attractive option in this high-quality and highly competitive precision radiotherapy landscape. Proton therapy holds promises to reduce toxicities and to escalate the dose in radioresistant cases or cases where dose distribution is not satisfactory with photons. However, the selection of patients for proton therapy needs to be done using evidence-based medicine to build arguments in favor of personalized precision radiation therapy. Referral to proton therapy versus IMRT or SBRT should be registered (ProtonShare® platform) and envisioned in a formalized clinical research perspective through randomized trials. The use of an enrichment process using a model-based approach should be done to only randomize patients doomed to benefit from proton. To tackle such great opportunities, the French proton therapy challenge is to collaborate at the national and international levels, and to demonstrate that the extra-costs of treatment are worth clinically and economically in the short, mid, and long-term. In parallel to the clinical developments, there are still preclinical issues to be tackled (e.g., proton FLASH, mini-beams, combination with immunotherapy), for which the French Radiotransnet network offers a unique platform. The current article provides a personal view of the challenges and opportunities with a focus on clinical research and randomized trial requirements as well as the needs for strong collaborations at the national and international levels for PT in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck to date.

The Use of Crowdfunding to Support Radiation Therapy Cancer Treatments.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The purpose of this study was to assess patients' use of a crowdfunding platform to raise funds for radiation treatment and to better understand the direct and indirect costs associated with treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The GoFundMe crowdfunding database was queried for four unique categories related to radiation treatment campaigns. Covariates identified included clinical and demographic variables, and associations between amount raised and these predictors were analyzed using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: While 56% percent of campaigns cited direct costs associated with treatment, 73.4% of campaigns cited indirect costs related to treatment. Indirect expenses related to travel (31.7%) as well as living expenses (29.2%) were cited most often across all four treatment categories. CONCLUSION: This study enhances understanding regarding patients use of crowdfunding for radiation treatment. Increased focus should be placed on discussing the indirect costs of care with patients and their families.

Association between Site-of-Care and the Cost and Modality of Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Medicare Beneficiaries from 2015 to 2017.

Among 84,447 radiotherapy (RT) courses for Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 65 with prostate cancer treated with external beam RT (EBRT), brachytherapy, or both, 42,608 (51%) were delivered in hospital-affiliated and 41,695 (49%) in freestanding facilities. Freestanding centers were less likely to use EBRT + brachytherapy than EBRT (OR 0.84 [95%CI 0.84-0.84]; p < .001). Treatment was more costly in freestanding centers (mean difference $2,597 [95%CI $2,475-2,719]; p < .001). Adjusting for modality and fractionation, RT in hospital-affiliated centers was more costly (mean difference $773 [95%CI $693-853]; p < .001). Freestanding centers utilized more expensive RT delivery, but factors unrelated to RT modality or fractionation rendered RT more costly at hospital-affiliated centers.

Individualised selection of left-sided breast cancer patients for proton therapy based on cost-effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: The significantly greater cost of proton therapy compared with X-ray therapy is frequently justified by the expected reduction in normal tissue toxicity. This is often true for indications such as paediatric and skull base cancers. However, the benefit is less clear for other more common indications such as breast cancer, and it is possible that the degree of benefit may vary widely between these patients. The aim of this work was to demonstrate a method of individualised selection of left-sided breast cancer patients for proton therapy based on cost-effectiveness of treatment. METHODS: 16 left-sided breast cancer patients had a treatment plan generated for the delivery of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and of intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) with the deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique. The resulting dosimetric data was used to predict probabilities of tumour control and toxicities for each patient. These probabilities were used in a Markov model to predict costs and the number of quality-adjusted life years expected as a result of each of the two treatments. RESULTS: IMPT was not cost-effective for the majority of patients but was cost-effective where there was a greater risk reduction of second malignancies with IMPT. CONCLUSION: The Markov model predicted that IMPT with DIBH was only cost-effective for selected left-sided breast cancer patients where IMRT resulted in a significantly greater dose to normal tissue. The presented model may serve as a means of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of IMPT on an individual patient basis.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of proton beam therapy for treatment decision making in paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness is a pivotal consideration for clinical decision making of high-tech cancer treatment in developing countries. Intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT, the advanced form of proton beam therapy) has been found to improve the prognosis of the patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers compared with intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy (IMRT). However, the cost-effectiveness of IMPT has not yet been fully evaluated. This study aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of IMPT versus IMRT for treatment decision making of paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in Chinese settings. METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was designed for cost-effectiveness analysis. A base case evaluation was performed on a patient of 47-year-old (median age of patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China). Model robustness was examined by probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Markov cohort analysis and Tornado diagram. Cost-effective scenarios of IMPT were further identified by one-way sensitivity analyses and stratified analyses were performed for different age levels. The outcome measure of the model was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A strategy was defined as cost-effective if the ICER was below the societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China (30,828 US dollars ($) / quality-adjusted life year (QALY)). RESULTS: IMPT was identified as being cost-effective for the base case at the WTP of China, providing an extra 1.65 QALYs at an additional cost of $38,928.7 compared with IMRT, and had an ICER of $23,611.2 / QALY. Of note, cost-effective scenarios of IMPT only existed in the following independent conditions: probability of IMPT eradicating cancer ≥0.867; probability of IMRT eradicating cancer ≤0.764; or cost of IMPT ≤ $52,163.9. Stratified analyses for different age levels demonstrated that IMPT was more cost-effective in younger patients than older patients, and was cost-effective only in patients ≤56-year-old. CONCLUSIONS: Despite initially regarded as bearing high treatment cost, IMPT could still be cost-effective for patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China. The tumor control superiority of IMPT over IMRT and the patient's age should be the principal considerations for clinical decision of prescribing this new irradiation technique.

Proton therapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Radiation therapy is an essential component of treatment for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but can be technically challenging because of the proximity of lung tumors to nearby critical organs or structures. The most effective strategy for reducing radiation-induced toxicity is to reduce unnecessary exposure of normal tissues by using advanced technology; examples from photon (X-ray) therapy have included three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy versus its predecessor, two-dimensional radiation therapy, and intensity-modulated photon radiation therapy versus its predecessor, three-dimensional conformal therapy. Using particle-beam therapy rather than photons offers the potential for further advantages because of the unique depth-dose characteristics of the particles, which can be exploited to allow still higher dose escalation to tumors with greater sparing of normal tissues, with the ultimate goal of improving local tumor control and survival while preserving quality of life by reducing treatment-related toxicity. However, the costs associated with particle therapy with protons are considerably higher than the current state of the art in photon technology, and evidence of clinical benefit from protons is increasingly being demanded to justify the higher financial burden on the healthcare system. Some such evidence is available from preclinical studies, from retrospective, single-institution clinical series, from analyses of national databases, and from single-arm prospective studies in addition to several ongoing randomized comparative trials. This review summarizes the rationale for and challenges of using proton therapy to treat thoracic cancers, reviews the current clinical experience, and suggests topics for future research.

Proton therapy for brain tumours in the area of evidence-based medicine.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This review details the indication of brain tumors for proton therapy and give a list of the open prospective trials for these challenging tumors.

New frontiers in proton therapy: applications in cancers.

Proton therapy offers dominant advantages over photon therapy due to the unique depth-dose characteristics of proton, which can cause a dramatic reduction in normal tissue doses both distal and proximal to the tumor target volume. In turn, this feature may allow dose escalation to the tumor target volume while sparing the tumor-neighboring susceptible organs at risk, which has the potential to reduce treatment toxicity and improve local control rate, quality of life and survival. Some dosimetric studies in various cancers have demonstrated the advantages over photon therapy in dose distributions. Further, it has been observed that proton therapy confers to substantial clinical advantage over photon therapy in head and neck, breast, hepatocellular, and non-small cell lung cancers. As such, proton therapy is regarded as the standard modality of radiotherapy in many pediatric cancers from the technical point of view. However, due to the limited clinical evidence, there have been concerns about the high cost of proton therapy from an economic point of view. Considering the treatment expenses for late radiation-induced toxicities, cost-effective analysis in many studies have shown that proton therapy is the most cost-effective option for brain, head and neck and selected breast cancers. Additional studies are warranted to better unveil the cost-effective values of proton therapy and to develop newer ways for better protection of normal tissues. This review aims at reviewing the recent studies on proton therapy to explore its benefits and cost-effectiveness in cancers. We strongly believe that proton therapy will be a common radiotherapy modality for most types of solid cancers in the future.

Cost-effectiveness of proton therapy in treating base of skull chordoma.

While proton beam therapy (PBT) can offer increased sparing of healthy tissue, it is associated with large capital costs and as such, has limited availability. Furthermore, it has not been well established whether PBT has significant clinical advantages over conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for all tumour types. PBT can potentially offer improved clinical outcomes for base of skull chordoma (BOSCh) patients compared with photon (X-ray) therapy, however the cost-effectiveness of these treatments is unclear. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of PBT in the treatment of BOSCh patients is assessed, based on an analysis of comparative radiotherapy treatment plans using a radiobiological Markov model. Seven BOSCh patients had treatment plans for the delivery of intensity modulated proton therapy and VMAT retrospectively analysed. The patient outcome (in terms of tumour local control and normal tissue complications) after receiving each treatment was estimated with a radiobiological Markov model. In addition, the model estimated the cost of both the primary treatment and treating any resultant adverse events. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was obtained for each patient. PBT was found to be cost-effective for 5 patients and cost-saving for 2. The mean ICER was AUD$1,990 per quality adjusted life year gained. Variation of model parameters resulted in the proton treatments remaining cost-effective for these patients. Based on this cohort, PBT is a cost-effective treatment for patients with BOSCh. This supports the inclusion of PBT for BOSCh in the Medicare Services Advisory Committee 1455 application.

[Proton therapy in France in 2019]. / État des lieux de la protonthérapie en France en 2019.

Among over 100 proton therapy centres worldwide in operation or under construction, French proton therapy is coming to full maturity with the recent opening of the Nice (1991, upgrade in 2016) and Caen (2018) facilities next to the Orsay (1991, upgrade in 2010) centre. Proton therapy is a national priority for children and young adults in all three centres. The patient-related activity of the three French centres is coordinated via the Protonshare portal to optimise referral by type of indication and available expertise in coordination with the French society of radiation oncology SFRO and French radiotherapy centres. The centres are recognised by the French Health Care excellence initiative, promoted by the ministry of Foreign Affairs. The three centres collaborate structurally in terms of clinical research and are engaged at the international level in the participation to European databases and research initiatives. Concerted actions are now also promoted in preclinical research via the Radiotransnet network. Ongoing French developments in proton therapy are well presented in international hadron therapy meetings, including European Proton Therapy Network and Particle Therapy Cooperative Oncology Group. Proton therapy teaching in France is offered at several levels and is open to colleagues from all radiation oncology centres, so that they are fully informed, involved and trained to facility recognition of possible indications and thereby to contribute to appropriate patient referral. This close collaboration between all actors in French radiation oncology facilitates the work to demonstrate the required level of medical and scientific evidence for current and emerging indications for particle therapy. Based on that, the future might entail a possible creation of more proton therapy facilities in France.

Cost-Effectiveness of Proton Versus Photon Therapy in Pediatric Medulloblastoma Treatment: A Patient Volume-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Proton radiation therapy offers advantages over photon therapy, assisting with severe side effect avoidance. Pediatric patients with medulloblastoma have demonstrated benefit from this technology in recently published cohort studies. OBJECTIVES: To compare the costs and benefits between proton and photon therapy in treating pediatric medulloblastoma. METHODS: The model was built with a lifetime horizon from the Brazilian health system perspective using a 3% discount rate. A microsimulation model was developed after a literature search, comparing scenarios of equipment life span and number of patients treated per year (50, 100, and 150 patients with 10, 25, and 20 years of equipment life span). The baseline parameters were 50 patients treated annually and 20 years of equipment life span. RESULTS: The quality-adjusted life-year gain was 2.71, and the average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $34 590.54 per quality-adjusted life-year. For the willingness-to-pay threshold of 1 gross domestic product per capita, it was observed that the incorporation of the technology would be cost-effective if more than 150 patients were treated per year. The weight of the equipment life span and other variables was limited when it varied in the sensitivity analysis, without significant changes to the model results. CONCLUSIONS: Proton therapy is not cost-effective for pediatric medulloblastoma treatment from the Brazilian health system perspective. The investment is not worth when considering the number of potential patients and the country dimensions.

Efficacy and toxicity of particle radiotherapy in WHO grade II and grade III meningiomas: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVEAdjuvant radiotherapy has become a common addition to the management of high-grade meningiomas, as immediate treatment with radiation following resection has been associated with significantly improved outcomes. Recent investigations into particle therapy have expanded into the management of high-risk meningiomas. Here, the authors systematically review studies on the efficacy and utility of particle-based radiotherapy in the management of high-grade meningioma.METHODSA literature search was developed by first defining the population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). A search strategy was designed for each of three electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Data extraction was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes of interest included local disease control, overall survival, and toxicity, which were compared with historical data on photon-based therapies.RESULTSEleven retrospective studies including 240 patients with atypical (WHO grade II) and anaplastic (WHO grade III) meningioma undergoing particle radiation therapy were identified. Five of the 11 studies included in this systematic review focused specifically on WHO grade II and III meningiomas; the others also included WHO grade I meningioma. Across all of the studies, the median follow-up ranged from 6 to 145 months. Local control rates for high-grade meningiomas ranged from 46.7% to 86% by the last follow-up or at 5 years. Overall survival rates ranged from 0% to 100% with better prognoses for atypical than for malignant meningiomas. Radiation necrosis was the most common adverse effect of treatment, occurring in 3.9% of specified cases.CONCLUSIONSDespite the lack of randomized prospective trials, this review of existing retrospective studies suggests that particle therapy, whether an adjuvant or a stand-alone treatment, confers survival benefit with a relatively low risk for severe treatment-derived toxicity compared to standard photon-based therapy. However, additional controlled studies are needed.

Proton versus photon-based radiation therapy for prostate cancer: emerging evidence and considerations in the era of value-based cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Advances in radiation technology have transformed treatment options for patients with localized prostate cancer. The evolution of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have allowed physicians to spare surrounding normal organs and reduce adverse effects. The introduction of proton beam technology and its physical advantage of depositing its energy in tissue at the end-of-range maximum may potentially spare critical organs such as the bladder and rectum in prostate cancer patients. Data thus far are limited to large, observational studies that have not yet demonstrated a definite benefit of protons over conventional treatment with IMRT. The cost of proton beam treatment adds to the controversy within the field. METHODS: We performed an extensive literature review for all proton treatment-related prostate cancer studies. We discuss the history of proton beam technology, as well as its role in the treatment of prostate cancer, associated controversies, novel technology trends, a discussion of cost-effectiveness, and an overview of the ongoing modern large prospective studies that aim to resolve the debate between protons and photons for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Present data have demonstrated that proton beam therapy is safe and effective compared with the standard treatment options for prostate cancer. While dosimetric studies suggest lower whole-body radiation dose and a theoretically higher relative biological effectiveness in prostate cancer compared with photons, no studies have demonstrated a clear benefit with protons. CONCLUSIONS: Evolving trends in proton treatment delivery and proton center business models are helping to reduce costs. Introduction of existing technology into proton delivery allows further control of organ motion and addressing organs-at-risk. Finally, the much-awaited contemporary studies comparing photon with proton-based treatments, with primary endpoints of patient-reported quality-of-life, will help us understand the differences between proton and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era.

Downstream Effect of a Proton Treatment Center on an Academic Medical Center.

PURPOSE: To quantify the effects of opening a proton center (PC) on an academic medical center (AMC)/radiation oncology department. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation treatment volume and relative value units from fiscal year 2015 (FY15) to FY17 were retrospectively analyzed at the AMC and 2 community-based centers. To quantify new patient referrals to the AMC, we reviewed the electronic medical record for all patients seen at the PC since consults were initiated in November 2015 (n = 1173). Patients were excluded if the date of entry into the AMC electronic medical record predated their PC consultation. Hospital resource use and professional and technical charges were obtained for these patients. Academic growth, philanthropy, and resident education were evaluated based on grant submissions, clinical trial enrollment, philanthropy, and pediatric case exposure, respectively, from PC opening through FY17. RESULTS: From FY15 to FY17, radiation fractions at the AMC and the 2 community sites decreased by 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12%-16%, P < .001) and increased by 19% (95% CI, 16%-23%, P < .001) and 2% (95% CI, -1.1 to 4.3%, P = NS), respectively; the number of new starts decreased by 3% (95% CI, -13% to 7%, P = NS) and 2% (95% CI, -20% to 16%, P = NS) and increased by 13% (95% CI -2% to 27%, P = NS), respectively. At the AMC, technical and professional relative value units decreased by 5% and 14%, respectively. The PC made 561 external referrals to the AMC, which resulted in $2.38 million technical and $2.13 million professional charges at the AMC. Fifteen grant submissions ($12.83 million) resulted in 6 awards ($3.26 million). Twenty-two clinical trials involving proton therapy were opened, on which a total of 5% (n = 54) of patients enrolled during calendar years 2017 and 2018. The PC was involved in gift donations of $1.6 million. There was a nonsignificant 37% increase in number of pediatric cases. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a slight decline in AMC photon patient volumes and relative value units, a positive downstream effect was associated with the addition of a PC, which benefited the AMC.