Patterns of Proton Beam Therapy Use in Clinical Practice between 2007 and 2019 in Korea.

PURPOSE: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a state-of-the-art technology employed in radiotherapy (RT) for cancer patients. This study characterized how PBT has been used in clinical practice in Korea. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received any type of RT between 2007 and 2019 were identified from the radiation oncology registry of the two PBT facilities operating in Korea (National Cancer Center and Samsung Medical Center). The chi-square test was used to identify patient- and treatment-related characteristics associated with the receipt of PBT. RESULTS: A total of 54,035 patients had been treated with some form of RT in the two institutions, of whom 5,398 received PBT (10.0%). The number of patients who receive PBT has gradually increased since PBT first started, from 162 patients in 2007 to 1,304 patients in 2019. Among all types of cancer, PBT use in liver cancer has been steadily increasing from 20% in 2008-2009 to 32% in 2018-2019. In contrast, that in prostate cancer has been continuously decreasing from 20% in 2008-2009 to < 10% in 2018-2019. Male sex, very young or old age, stage I-II disease, residency in non-capital areas, a definitive setting, a curative treatment aim, enrollment in a clinical trial, re-irradiation and insurance coverage were significantly associated with the receipt of PBT (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Since PBT started in Korea, the number of patients receiving PBT has increased to more than 1,000 per year and treatment indications have expanded. Liver cancer is the most common primary tumor among all PBT cases in Korea.

Young Adult Populations Face Yet Another Barrier to Care With Insurers: Limited Access to Proton Therapy.

PURPOSE: Young patients, including pediatric, adolescent, and young adult (YA) patients, are most likely to benefit from the reduced integral dose of proton beam radiation therapy (PBT) resulting in fewer late toxicities and secondary malignancies. This study sought to examine insurance approval and appeal outcomes for PBT among YA patients compared with pediatric patients at a large-volume proton therapy center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a cross-sectional cohort study of 284 consecutive patients aged 0 to 39 years for whom PBT was recommended in 2018 through 2019. Pediatric patients were defined as aged 0 to 18 years and YA patients 19 to 39 years. Rates of approval, denials, and decision timelines were calculated. Tumor type and location were also evaluated as factors that may influence insurance decisions. RESULTS: A total of 207 patients (73%) were approved for PBT at initial request. YA patients (n = 68/143, 48%) were significantly less likely to receive initial approval compared with pediatric patients (n = 139/141; 99%) (P < .001). Even after 47% (n = 35 of 75) of the PBT denials for YA patients were overturned, YAs had a significantly lower final PBT approval (72% vs pediatric 99%; P < .001). The median wait time was also significantly longer for YA patients (median, 8 days; interquartile range [IQR] 3-17 vs median, 2 days; IQR, 0-6; P < .001). In those patients requiring an appeal, the median wait time was 16 days (IQR, 9-25). CONCLUSION: Given the decades of survivorship of YA patients, PBT is an important tool to reduce late toxicities and secondary malignancies. Compared with pediatric patients, YA patients are significantly less likely to receive insurance approval for PBT. Insurance denials and subsequent appeal requests result in significant delays for YA patients. Insurers need to re-examine their policies to include expedited decisions and appeals and removal of arbitrary age cutoffs so that YA patients can gain easier access to PBT. Furthermore, consensus guidelines encouraging greater PBT access for YA may be warranted from both medical societies and/or AYA experts.

Proton beam therapy utilization in adults with primary brain tumors in the United States.

The utilization of proton beam therapy (PBT) as the primary treatment of adults with primary brain tumors (APBT) was evaluated through query of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) between the years 2004 and 2015. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology code for each patient was stratified into six histology categories; high-grade gliomas, medulloblastomas, ependymomas, other gliomas, other malignant tumors, or other benign intracranial tumors. Demographics of the treatment population were also analyzed. A total of 1,296 patients received PBT during the 11-year interval for treatment of their primary brain tumor. High-grade glioma, medulloblastoma, ependymoma, other glioma, other malignant, and other benign intracranial histologies made up 39%, 20%, 13%, 12%, 13%, and 2% of the cohort, respectively. The number of patients treated per year increased from 34 to 300 in years 2004 to 2015. Histologies treated with PBT varied over the 11-year interval with high-grade gliomas comprising 75% and 45% at years 2004 and 2015, respectively. The majority of the patient population was 18-29 years of age (59%), Caucasian race (73%), had median reported income of over $63,000 (46%), were privately insured (68%), and were treated at an academic institution (70%). This study characterizes trends of malignant and benign APBT histologies treated with PBT. Our data from 2004 through 2015 illustrates a marked increase in the utilization of PBT in the treatment of APBT and shows variability in the tumor histology treated over this time.

The Development and Validation of Prostate Cancer-specific Physician-Hospital Networks.

OBJECTIVE: To develop prostate cancer-specific physician-hospital networks to define hospital-based units that more accurately group hospitals, providers, and the patients they serve. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare, we identified men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2007 and 2011. We created physician-hospital networks by assigning each patient to a physician and each physician to a hospital based on treatment patterns. We assessed content validity by examining characteristics of hospitals anchoring the physician-hospital networks and of the patients associated with these hospitals. RESULTS: We identified 42,963 patients associated with 344 physician-hospital networks. Networks anchored by a teaching hospital (compared to a nonteaching hospital) had higher median numbers of prostate cancer patients (117 [interquartile range {71-189} vs 82 {50-126}]) and treating physicians (7 [4-11] vs 4 [3-6]) (both P <0.001). On average, patients traveled farther to networks anchored by a teaching hospital (49 miles [standard deviation] [207] vs 41 [183]; P <.001). Hospitals known as high-volume centers for robotic prostatectomies, proton-beam therapy, and active surveillance had network rates for these procedures well above the mean. Hospitals known as safety net providers served higher proportions of minorities. CONCLUSION: We empirically developed prostate-cancer specific physician-hospital networks that exhibit content validity and are relevant from a clinical and policy perspective. They have the potential to become targets for policy interventions focused on improving the delivery of prostate cancer care.

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.

Highly efficient and sensitive patient-specific quality assurance for spot-scanned proton therapy.

The purpose of this work was to develop an end-to-end patient-specific quality assurance (QA) technique for spot-scanned proton therapy that is more sensitive and efficient than traditional approaches. The patient-specific methodology relies on independently verifying the accuracy of the delivered proton fluence and the dose calculation in the heterogeneous patient volume. A Monte Carlo dose calculation engine, which was developed in-house, recalculates a planned dose distribution on the patient CT data set to verify the dose distribution represented by the treatment planning system. The plan is then delivered in a pre-treatment setting and logs of spot position and dose monitors, which are integrated into the treatment nozzle, are recorded. A computational routine compares the delivery log to the DICOM spot map used by the Monte Carlo calculation to ensure that the delivered parameters at the machine match the calculated plan. Measurements of dose planes using independent detector arrays, which historically are the standard approach to patient-specific QA, are not performed for every patient. The nozzle-integrated detectors are rigorously validated using independent detectors in regular QA intervals. The measured data are compared to the expected delivery patterns. The dose monitor reading deviations are reported in a histogram, while the spot position discrepancies are plotted vs. spot number to facilitate independent analysis of both random and systematic deviations. Action thresholds are linked to accuracy of the commissioned delivery system. Even when plan delivery is acceptable, the Monte Carlo second check system has identified dose calculation issues which would not have been illuminated using traditional, phantom-based measurement techniques. The efficiency and sensitivity of our patient-specific QA program has been improved by implementing a procedure which independently verifies patient dose calculation accuracy and plan delivery fidelity. Such an approach to QA requires holistic integration and maintenance of patient-specific and patient-independent QA.

National practice patterns of proton versus photon therapy in the treatment of adult patients with primary brain tumors in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patterns of care associated with the administration of proton versus photon therapy for adult patients with primary brain tumors in a large national cohort from the United States. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for newly diagnosed primary brain tumors (2004-2014) in adult patients aged 18 and older receiving proton or photon radiotherapy. Clinical features, patient demographics and treatment parameters were extracted. Differences between groups were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: In total, 73,073 patients were analyzed (n = 72,635 [99.4%] photon therapy, n = 438 [0.6%] proton therapy). On multivariable analysis of photon versus proton therapy, several factors predicted for receipt of proton therapy, including younger age (p = .041), highest income quartile (p = .007), treatment at academic institutions (p < .001), in regional facilities outside the Midwest/South (p < .001), diagnosis in more recent years (p = .003), fewer comorbidities (p < .001) and non-glioblastoma histology (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: There are several significant socioeconomic variables that influence receipt of proton therapy for primary brain tumors. Although not implying causation, the socioeconomic findings discovered herein should be taken into account when delivering cancer care to all patients.

Insurance Approval for Proton Beam Therapy and its Impact on Delays in Treatment.

PURPOSE: Prior authorization (PA) has been widely implemented for proton beam therapy (PBT). We sought to determine the association between PA determination and patient characteristics, practice guidelines, and potential treatment delays. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single-institution retrospective analysis was performed of all patients considered for PBT between 2015 and 2018 at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Differences in treatment start times and denial rates over time were compared, and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of initial denial. RESULTS: A total of 444 patients were considered for PBT, including 396 adult and 48 pediatric patients. The American Society for Radiation Oncology model policy supported PBT coverage for 77% of the cohort. Of adult patients requiring PA, 64% were initially denied and 32% remained denied after appeal. In patients considered for reirradiation or randomized phase 3 trial enrollment, initial denial rates were 57% and 64%, respectively. Insurance coverage was not related to diagnosis, reirradiation, trial enrollment, or the American Society for Radiation Oncology model policy guidelines, but it was related to insurance category on multivariable analysis (P < .001). Over a 3-year timespan, initial denial rates increased from 55% to 74% (P = .034). PA delayed treatment start by an average of 3 weeks (and up to 4 months) for those requiring appeal (P < .001) and resulted in 19% of denied patients abandoning radiation treatment altogether. Of pediatric patients, 9% were initially denied, all of whom were approved after appeal, and PA requirement did not delay treatment start (P = .47). CONCLUSIONS: PA requirements in adults represent a significant burden in initiating PBT and cause significant delays in patient care. Insurance approval is arbitrary and has become more restrictive over time, discordant with national clinical practice guidelines. Payors and providers should seek to streamline coverage policies in alignment with established guidelines to ensure appropriate and timely patient care.

The Insurance Approval Process for Proton Radiation Therapy: A Significant Barrier to Patient Care.

PURPOSE: Proton therapy is increasingly prescribed for cancer treatment, given its potential for improvements in clinical outcomes and toxicity reduction; however, insurance coverage continues to be a barrier to patient access. This study examined insurance approval and appeal outcomes at a large-volume proton therapy center to clarify the process and identify areas for improvement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 2013 to 2016, 1753 patients with thoracic or head and neck cancer were considered for proton therapy; 903 (553 thoracic, 350 head and neck) entered the insurance process. Rates of and times to approval and successful appeal after initial denial were calculated. Clinical factors were evaluated for association with insurance outcomes via logistic regression. RESULTS: Approval rates by Medicare (n = 538) and private insurance (n = 365) were 91% and 30% on initial request, at a median 3 days and 14 days from inquiry to determination. Of the 306 patients initially denied coverage, 276 appealed the decision, and denial was overturned for 189 patients (68%; median time, 21 days from initial inquiry). On multivariable analysis, Medicare (odds ratio [OR], 14.20; P < .001) was the strongest predictor of initial approval. Approval rates decreased from 2013 to 2014 versus 2015 to 2016 (OR 0.54; P = .001). For patients who appealed denial, multivariable analysis found no associations between approval and trial enrollment or tumor type. Submission of a comparison treatment plan (proton vs photon) indicating dosimetric advantage to normal tissues was associated with decreased likelihood of approval (OR 0.43; P = .006), as was a prescribed dose of ≥66 Gy (OR 0.48; P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an 87% ultimate approval rate for proton therapy, the insurance process is a resource-intensive barrier to patient access associated with significant time delays to cancer treatment. These findings, plus the lack of clinical correlates with insurance outcomes, highlight a need for increased efficiency, transparency, and collaboration among stakeholders to promote timely patient care and research.

Photon and Proton Radiation Therapy Utilization in a Population of More Than 100 Million Commercially Insured Patients.

PURPOSE: To characterize the changes in the use of radiation therapy (RT), specifically proton beam radiation therapy (PBRT), among adult and pediatric patients over a 11-year period in a very large population of insured patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the OptumLabs Data Warehouse claims database of more than 100 million insured US enrollees. Descriptive analyses were undertaken to evaluate the characteristics of patients receiving RT from 2002 to 2012. RESULTS: There were 474,533 patients treated with RT from 2002 to 2012. The percentage of patients treated with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, 2-dimensional RT/brachytherapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and PBRT was 34.5%, 63.4%, 2.1%, 0.0%, and 0.1% and 40.4%, 36.0%, 21.9%, 1.1%, and 0.6% in 2002 and 2012, respectively. The greatest increase in utilization was of IMRT for prostate cancer, growing from 3.5% to 64.0%. For non-prostate cancer adults, IMRT use grew from 1.7% to 16.4%. For children, PBRT utilization increased from 0.3% to 9.7%. For prostate cancer patients, PBRT increased from 0.0% to 2.6%. For all patients, advanced technology (SBRT and PBRT) use was very low at <2%, versus 22% for IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest and most geographically diverse description of RT utilization. Proton beam RT utilization remains very low and has had little impact on overall RT utilization compared with IMRT. The largest shift has occurred in IMRT for prostate cancer. Our findings indicate that overall utilization of proton therapy has been low and that its use has likely had little impact on national expenditures on cancer care in the current environment.

Socioeconomic factors affect the selection of proton radiation therapy for children.

BACKGROUND: Proton radiotherapy remains a limited resource despite its clear potential for reducing radiation doses to normal tissues and late effects in children in comparison with photon therapy. This study examined the impact of race and socioeconomic factors on the use of proton therapy in children with solid malignancies. METHODS: This study evaluated 12,101 children (age ≤ 21 years) in the National Cancer Data Base who had been diagnosed with a solid malignancy between 2004 and 2013 and had received photon- or proton-based radiotherapy. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate patient, tumor, and socioeconomic variables affecting treatment with proton radiotherapy versus photon radiotherapy. RESULTS: Eight percent of the patients in the entire cohort received proton radiotherapy, and this proportion increased between 2004 (1.7%) and 2013 (17.5%). Proton therapy was more frequently used in younger patients (age ≤ 10 years; odds ratio [OR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-2.2) and in patients with bone/joint primaries and ependymoma, medulloblastoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma histologies (P < .05). Patients with metastatic disease were less likely to receive proton therapy (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.6). Patients with private/managed care were more likely than patients with Medicaid or no insurance to receive proton therapy (P < .0001). A higher median household income and educational attainment were also associated with increased proton use (P < .001). Patients treated with proton therapy versus photon therapy were more likely to travel more than 200 miles (13% vs 5%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic factors affect the use of proton radiotherapy in children. Whether this disparity is related to differences in the referral patterns, the knowledge of treatment modalities, or the ability to travel for therapy needs to be further clarified. Improving access to proton therapy in underserved pediatric populations is essential. Cancer 2017;123:4048-56. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Adoption of Radiation Technology Among Privately Insured Nonelderly Patients With Cancer in the United States, 2008 to 2014: A Claims-Based Analysis.

Despite enthusiasm for advanced radiation technologies, understanding of their adoption in recent years is limited. The aim of this study was to elucidate utilization trends of conventional radiation, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, proton radiotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) using a large convenience sample of irradiated patients with cancer identified from private insurance claims in the United States. The unit of analysis was a claim corresponding to a fraction of delivered radiotherapy from 2008 to 2014. Each claim was assigned a disease site on the basis of the diagnosis code and a radiation technology on the basis of the procedure code. In 2014, conventional radiation and IMRT constituted 56% and 39% of all radiation treatment claims, respectively, while brachytherapy constituted 2%, proton radiotherapy 1%, SBRT 1%, and SRS <1%. Compared with the first quarter of 2008, the proportional contribution of conventional radiation and brachytherapy to all radiation claims each decreased by 16% in the fourth quarter of 2014. In contrast, proportional contribution increased by 32% for IMRT, 83% for proton radiotherapy, 124% for SRS, and 309% for SBRT. Prostate cancer constituted 60% of all proton claims in 2008 but declined to 37% by 2014. SBRT was used to treat a variety of disease sites, most commonly primary lung (25%), prostate (12%), secondary bone (9%), and secondary lung (9%), in 2014. In this claims-based analysis of younger patients with private insurance, conventional radiation and IMRT were the most commonly used technologies from 2008 to 2014, while SBRT showed the most robust growth over the study period.

Establishing Evidence-Based Indications for Proton Therapy: An Overview of Current Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: To review and assess ongoing proton beam therapy (PBT) clinical trials and to identify major gaps. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Active PBT clinical trials were identified from clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Registry. Data on clinical trial disease site, age group, projected patient enrollment, expected start and end dates, study type, and funding source were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 122 active PBT clinical trials were identified, with target enrollment of >42,000 patients worldwide. Ninety-six trials (79%), with a median planned sample size of 68, were classified as interventional studies. Observational studies accounted for 21% of trials but 71% (n=29,852) of planned patient enrollment. The most common PBT clinical trials focus on gastrointestinal tract tumors (21%, n=26), tumors of the central nervous system (15%, n=18), and prostate cancer (12%, n=15). Five active studies (lung, esophagus, head and neck, prostate, breast) will randomize patients between protons and photons, and 3 will randomize patients between protons and carbon ion therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The PBT clinical trial portfolio is expanding rapidly. Although the majority of ongoing studies are interventional, the majority of patients will be accrued to observational studies. Future efforts should focus on strategies to encourage optimal patient enrollment and retention, with an emphasis on randomized, controlled trials, which will require support from third-party payers. Results of ongoing PBT studies should be evaluated in terms of comparative effectiveness, as well as incremental effectiveness and value offered by PBT in comparison with conventional radiation modalities.

Promoting the Appropriate Use of Advanced Radiation Technologies in Oncology: Summary of a National Cancer Policy Forum Workshop.

PURPOSE: Leaders in the oncology community are sounding a clarion call to promote "value" in cancer care decisions. Value in cancer care considers the clinical effectiveness, along with the costs, when selecting a treatment. To discuss possible solutions to the current obstacles to achieving value in the use of advanced technologies in oncology, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop, "Appropriate Use of Advanced Technologies for Radiation Therapy and Surgery in Oncology" in July 2015. The present report summarizes the discussions related to radiation oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The workshop convened stakeholders, including oncologists, researchers, payers, policymakers, and patients. Speakers presented on key themes, including the rationale for a value discussion on advanced technology use in radiation oncology, the generation of scientific evidence for value of advanced radiation technologies, the effect of both scientific evidence and "marketplace" (or economic) factors on the adoption of technologies, and newer approaches to improving value in the practice of radiation oncology. The presentations were followed by a panel discussion with dialogue among the stakeholders. RESULTS: Challenges to generating evidence for the value of advanced technologies include obtaining contemporary, prospective, randomized, and representative comparative effectiveness data. Proposed solutions include the use of prospective registry data; integrating radiation oncology treatment, outcomes, and quality benchmark data; and encouraging insurance coverage with evidence development. Challenges to improving value in practice include the slow adoption of higher value and the de-adoption of lower value treatments. The proposed solutions focused on engaging stakeholders in iterative, collaborative, and evidence-based efforts to define value and promote change in radiation oncology practice. Recent examples of ongoing or successful responses to the discussed challenges were provided. CONCLUSIONS: Discussions of "value" have increased as a priority in the radiation oncology community. Practitioners in the radiation oncology community can play a critical role in promoting a value-oriented framework to approach radiation oncology treatment.

Patterns of Care in Proton Radiation Therapy for Pediatric Central Nervous System Malignancies.

PURPOSE: Proton beam therapy (PBT) potentially allows for improved sparing of normal tissues, hopefully leading to decreased late side effects in children. Using a national registry, we sought to perform a patterns-of-care analysis for children receiving PBT for primary malignancies of the central nervous system (CNS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the National Cancer Data Base, we identified pediatric patients with primary CNS malignancies that were diagnosed between 2004 and 2012. We used a standard t test for comparison of means and χ2 testing to identify differences in demographic and clinical characteristics. Univariate and multivariate logistical regression was applied to identify predictors of PBT use. RESULTS: We identified 4637 pediatric patients receiving radiation therapy from 2004 to 2012, including a subset of 267 patients treated with PBT. We found that PBT use increased with time from <1% in 2004 to 15% in 2012. In multivariate logistical regression, we found the following to be predictors of receipt of PBT: private insurance, the highest income bracket, younger age, living in a metropolitan area, and residing >200 miles from a radiation treatment facility (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: We noted the proportion of children receiving PBT to be significantly increasing over time from <1% to 15% from 2004 to 2012. We also observed important disparities in receipt of PBT based on socioeconomic status. Children from higher-income households and with private insurance were more likely to use this expensive technology. As we continue to demonstrate the potential benefits of PBT in children, efforts are needed to expand the accessibility of PBT for children of all socioeconomic backgrounds and regions of the country.

National Cancer Database Analysis of Proton Versus Photon Radiation Therapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To analyze outcomes and predictors associated with proton radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the National Cancer Database. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The National Cancer Database was queried to capture patients with stage I-IV NSCLC treated with thoracic radiation from 2004 to 2012. A logistic regression model was used to determine the predictors for utilization of proton radiation therapy. The univariate and multivariable association with overall survival were assessed by Cox proportional hazards models along with log-rank tests. A propensity score matching method was implemented to balance baseline covariates and eliminate selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 243,822 patients (photon radiation therapy: 243,474; proton radiation therapy: 348) were included in the analysis. Patients in a ZIP code with a median income of <$46,000 per year were less likely to receive proton treatment, with the income cohort of $30,000 to $35,999 least likely to receive proton therapy (odds ratio 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.90]; P=.011). On multivariate analysis of all patients, non-proton therapy was associated with significantly worse survival compared with proton therapy (hazard ratio 1.21 [95% CI 1.06-1.39]; P<.01). On propensity matched analysis, proton radiation therapy (n=309) was associated with better 5-year overall survival compared with non-proton radiation therapy (n=1549), 22% versus 16% (P=.025). For stage II and III patients, non-proton radiation therapy was associated with worse survival compared with proton radiation therapy (hazard ratio 1.35 [95% CI 1.10-1.64], P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic radiation with protons is associated with better survival in this retrospective analysis; further validation in the randomized setting is needed to account for any imbalances in patient characteristics, including positron emission tomography-computed tomography staging.

Prompt gamma ray imaging for verification of proton boron fusion therapy: A Monte Carlo study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to verify acquisition feasibility of a single photon emission computed tomography image using prompt gamma rays for proton boron fusion therapy (PBFT) and to confirm an enhanced therapeutic effect of PBFT by comparison with conventional proton therapy without use of boron. METHODS: Monte Carlo simulation was performed to acquire reconstructed image during PBFT. We acquired percentage depth dose (PDD) of the proton beams in a water phantom, energy spectrum of the prompt gamma rays, and tomographic images, including the boron uptake region (BUR; target). The prompt gamma ray image was reconstructed using maximum likelihood expectation maximisation (MLEM) with 64 projection raw data. To verify the reconstructed image, both an image profile and contrast analysis according to the iteration number were conducted. In addition, the physical distance between two BURs in the region of interest of each BUR was measured. RESULTS: The PDD of the proton beam from the water phantom including the BURs shows more efficient than that of conventional proton therapy on tumour region. A 719keV prompt gamma ray peak was clearly observed in the prompt gamma ray energy spectrum. The prompt gamma ray image was reconstructed successfully using 64 projections. Different image profiles including two BURs were acquired from the reconstructed image according to the iteration number. CONCLUSION: We confirmed successful acquisition of a prompt gamma ray image during PBFT. In addition, the quantitative image analysis results showed relatively good performance for further study.