A Nordic-Baltic perspective on indications for proton therapy with strategies for identification of proper patients.

The beneficial effects of protons are primarily based on reduction of low to intermediate radiation dose bath to normal tissue surrounding the radiotherapy target volume. Despite promise for reduced long-term toxicity, the percentage of cancer patients treated with proton therapy remains low. This is probably caused by technical improvements in planning and delivery of photon therapy, and by high cost, low availability and lack of high-level evidence on proton therapy. A number of proton treatment facilities are under construction or have recently opened; there are now two operational Scandinavian proton centres and two more are under construction, thereby eliminating the availability hurdle. Even with the advantageous physical properties of protons, there is still substantial ambiguity and no established criteria related to which patients should receive proton therapy. This topic was discussed in a session at the Nordic Collaborative Workshop on Particle Therapy, held in Uppsala 14-15 November 2019. This paper resumes the Nordic-Baltic perspective on proton therapy indications and discusses strategies to identify patients for proton therapy. As for indications, neoplastic entities, target volume localisation, size, internal motion, age, second cancer predisposition, dose escalation and treatment plan comparison based on the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle or normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models were discussed. Importantly, the patient selection process should be integrated into the radiotherapy community and emphasis on collaboration across medical specialties, involvement of key decision makers and knowledge dissemination in general are important factors. An active Nordic-Baltic proton therapy organisation would also serve this purpose.

Normal tissue complication probability models in plan evaluation of children with brain tumors referred to proton therapy.

Background: Children with brain tumors undergoing radiotherapy are at particular risk of radiation-induced morbidity and are therefore routinely considered for proton therapy (PT) to reduce the dose to healthy tissues. The aim of this study was to apply pediatric constraints and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models when evaluating the differences between PT and contemporary photon-based radiotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods: Forty patients (aged 1-17 years) referred from Norwegian institutions to cranial PT abroad during 2014-2016 were selected for VMAT re-planning using the original CT sets and target volumes. The VMAT and delivered PT plans were compared by dose/volume metrics and NTCP models related to growth hormone deficiency, auditory toxicity, visual impairment, xerostomia, neurocognitive outcome and secondary brain and parotid gland cancers. Results: The supratentorial brain, temporal lobes, hippocampi, hypothalamus, pituitary glands, cochleas, salivary glands, optic nerves and chiasm received lower mean doses from PT. Reductions in population median NTCP were significant for auditory toxicity (VMAT: 3.8%; PT: 0.3%), neurocognitive outcome (VMAT: 3.0 IQ points decline at 5 years post RT; PT: 2.5 IQ points), xerostomia (VMAT: 2.0%; PT: 0.6%), excess absolute risk of secondary cancer of the brain (VMAT: 9.2%; PT: 6.7%) and salivary glands (VMAT: 2.8%; PT:0.5%). Across all patients, 23/38 PT plans had better or comparable estimated risks for all endpoints (within ±10% of the risk relative to VMAT), whereas for 1/38 patients all estimates were better or comparable with VMAT. Conclusions: PT reduced the volumes of normal tissues exposed to radiation, particularly low-to-intermediate dose levels, and this was reflected in lower NTCP. Of the included endpoints, substantial reductions in population medians were seen from the delivered PT plans for auditory complications, xerostomia, and risk of secondary cancers of the brain and salivary glands.

Dose painting for re-irradiation of head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: For patients with recurrent or second primary disease, re-irradiation can be challenging due to overlap with previously irradiated volumes. Dose painting may be attractive for these patients, as the focus is on delivering maximal dose to areas of high tumor activity. Here, we compare dose painting by contours (DPBC) treatment plans based on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) with conventional plans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included 10 patients with recurrent or second primary head and neck cancer (HNC) eligible for re-irradiation. Our conventional re-irradiation regimen is hyperfractionated radiotherapy 1.5 Gy twice daily over 4 weeks, giving a total dose of 60 Gy. For DPBC, we defined two prescription volumes, PV33 and PV66, corresponding to 33 and 66% of the highest FDG uptake in the tumor. The clinical target volume (CTV) prescription dose was 60 Gy, PV33; 65-67 Gy and PV66; 70-73 Gy. The DPBC plan is to be given the first 20 fractions and the conventional plan the last 20 fractions. Dose to organs at risk (OARs) were compared for DPBC and conventional treatment. By summation of the initial curative plan and the re-irradiation plan, we also evaluated differences in dose to the 2 ccm hot spot (D2cc). RESULTS: We achieved DPBC plans with adequate target coverage for all 10 patients. There were no significant differences in OAR doses between the standard plans and the DPBC plans (p=.7). Summation of the initial curative plan and the re-irradiation plan showed that the median D2cc increased from 130 Gy (range 113-132 Gy; conventional) to 140 Gy (range 115-145 Gy; DPBC). CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed DPBC could be straightforwardly implemented and all plans met the objectives. Re-irradiation of HNC with DPBC may increase tumor control without more side effects compared to conventional radiotherapy.