Stereotactic Body Proton Therapy Versus Conventionally Fractionated Proton Therapy for Early Prostate Cancer: A Randomized, Controlled, Phase 3 Trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine if ultra-hypofractionated proton therapy delivered via stereotactic body proton therapy (SBPT) is non-inferior to conventionally fractionated proton therapy (CFPT) in patients with early prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority phase 3 trial that included patients with histologically confirmed low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma defined by Gleason score grouping 1, PSA <10 ng/mL, and clinical stage T1-2a N0 M0 according to AJCC 7th ed. Eligible participants were randomly assigned initially at a 1:1 ratio and later at a 2:1 ratio to SBPT (38 Gy in 5 fractions) or CFPT (79.2 Gy in 44 fractions). The primary endpoint was freedom from failure (FFF) at 2 years from the date of randomization. Non-inferiority for FFF was determined based on one-sided confidence intervals. Toxicities were compared at different time points using Fisher's Exact test. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) was analyzed at different time points using a mixed-effects linear model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01230866, and is closed to accrual. RESULTS: Between December 10, 2010, and September 29, 2020, 144 patients were enrolled and 135 were randomly assigned (90 to the SBPT group and 45 to the CFPT group). The median follow-up was 5 years (IQR 3.9-5.2). The 2-year FFF was 100% for both groups, with the one-sided 5-year risk difference in FFF between groups reported as 2.63% (90% CI: -1.70%-6.96%), favoring the SBRT arm, thus fulfilling the pre-specified criteria for non-inferiority of SBPT compared to CFPT. Rates of gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) G2 and G3 toxicities did not differ significantly between groups but the the study was not powered to detect significant toxicity differences. Also, HRQoL metrics did not differ significantly between groups over the study median follow up. CONCLUSIONS: SBPT is non-inferior to CFPT regarding FFF, with similar long-term GU and GI toxicity rates and minimal impact in patient reported HRQoL over time.

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.

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.

Evaluation of the utility of rescans in the treatment of prostate and pelvic nodes with pencil beam scanning protons.

To determine the necessity of the first week CT simulation rescan of pencil beam scanning (PBS) prostate patients requiring treatment to the pelvic lymph nodes. Patients were treated on a prospective registry trial sponsored by the Proton Collaborative Group (PCG-NCT01255748). A total of 42 patients with high-risk prostate cancer requiring treatment to the pelvic lymph nodes were evaluated in a single calendar year. The cohort consisted of a mix of intact prostate and postprostatectomy patients. Most of the patients were treated with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) approach for the majority of the plan. The radiation prescriptions varied depending on whether the patient had an intact prostate or prostate bed. The plan geometry consisted of two lateral beams and a single field optimization (SFO) dosimetric matching technique using pencil beam scanning proton therapy. An in-house protocol was established wherein all high-risk prostate patients had at least 1 rescan evaluation performed during the first 5 ± 2 fractions, which was used to determine whether the nominal approved plan was robust to daily setup uncertainties and anatomical variations. If the evaluation failed clinical analysis, an adaptive replan was created. If 5% or more of the evaluated rescans resulted in a qualified adaptive plan, the planning technique would be considered insufficient. Of the 42 patients investigated, five (11.9%) required an adaptive plan. As it turned out, all five of these patients would have been rescanned within the first 5 fractions of treatment, independent of the established rescan protocol, due to a physician, dosimetrist, or therapist requesting a rescan to investigate specific areas of concern regarding setup or anatomic changes. Of the 5 adaptive plans, only one (2.4%) meets the criteria of a qualified adaptive plan. Our findings substantiated that this policy of a planned rescan with the 5th fraction was no longer necessary, the dosimetric technique had proven to be robust, and moving forward we will only perform these rescans if there is a significant issue with daily setups or observed changes in anatomy.

Initial Quality of Life and Toxicity Analysis of a Randomized Phase 3 Study of Moderately Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy With or Without Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate: PCG GU003.

Purpose: Our objective was to report the quality of life (QoL) analysis and toxicity in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) GU003. Methods and Materials: Between 2012 and 2019, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy (PBT) to 70 Gy relative biologic effectiveness in 28 fractions to the prostate with or without 6 months of ADT. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, Short-Form 12, and the American Urological Association Symptom Index instruments were given at baseline and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after PBT. Toxicities were assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4). Results: One hundred ten patients were randomized to PBT either with 6 months of ADT (n = 55) or without ADT (n = 55). The median follow-up was 32.4 months (range, 5.5-84.6). On average, 101 out of 110 (92%) patients filled out baseline QoL and patient-reported outcome surveys. The compliance was 84%, 82%, 64%, and 42% at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Baseline median American Urological Association Symptom Index was comparable between arms (6 [11%] ADT vs 5 [9%] no ADT, P = .359). Acute and late grade 2+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were similar between arms. The ADT arm experienced a QoL decline of mean scores in the sexual (-16.1, P < .001) and hormonal (-6.3, P < .001) domains, with the largest time-specific hormonal differences at 3 (-13.8, P < .001) and 6 (-11.2, P < .001) months. The hormonal QoL domain returned to baseline 6 months after therapy. There was a trend to baseline in sexual function 6 months after completion of ADT. Conclusions: After 6 months of ADT, sexual and hormonal domains returned to baseline 6 months after completion of treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Clinical outcomes and toxicities of 100 patients treated with proton therapy for chordoma on the proton collaborative group prospective registry.

BACKGROUND: We present efficacy and toxicity outcomes among patients with chordoma treated on the Proton Collaborative Group prospective registry. METHODS: Consecutive chordoma patients treated between 2010-2018 were evaluated. One hundred fifty patients were identified, 100 had adequate follow-up information. Locations included base of skull (61%), spine (23%), and sacrum (16%). Patients had a performance status of ECOG 0-1 (82%) and median age of 58 years. Eighty-five percent of patients underwent surgical resection. The median proton RT dose was 74 Gy (RBE) (range 21-86 Gy (RBE)) using passive scatter proton RT (PS-PBT) (13%), uniform scanning proton RT (US-PBT) (54%) and pencil beam scanning proton RT (PBS-PBT) (33%). Rates of local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and acute and late toxicities were assessed. RESULTS: 2/3-year LC, PFS, and OS rates are 97%/94%, 89%/74%, and 89%/83%, respectively. LC did not differ based on surgical resection (p = 0.61), though this is likely limited by most patients having undergone a prior resection. Eight patients experienced acute grade 3 toxicities, most commonly pain (n = 3), radiation dermatitis (n = 2), fatigue (n = 1), insomnia (n = 1) and dizziness (n = 1). No grade ≥ 4 acute toxicities were reported. No grade ≥ 3 late toxicities were reported, and most common grade 2 toxicities were fatigue (n = 5), headache (n = 2), CNS necrosis (n = 1), and pain (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: In our series, PBT achieved excellent safety and efficacy outcomes with very low rates of treatment failure. CNS necrosis is exceedingly low (<1%) despite the high doses of PBT delivered. Further maturation of data and larger patient numbers are necessary to optimize therapy in chordoma.

Proton therapy for isolated local regional recurrence of breast cancer after mastectomy alone.

Purpose/Objectives: To assess adverse events (AEs) and disease-specific outcomes after proton therapy for isolated local-regional recurrence (LRR) of breast cancer after mastectomy without prior radiotherapy (RT). Materials/Methods: Patients were identified from a multi-institutional prospective registry and included if diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, initially underwent mastectomy without adjuvant RT, experienced an LRR, and subsequently underwent salvage treatment, including proton therapy. Follow-up and cancer outcomes were measured from the date of RT completion. Results: Nineteen patients were included. Seventeen patients were treated with proton therapy to the chest wall and comprehensive regional lymphatics (17/19, 90%). Maximum grade AE was grade 2 in 13 (69%) patients and grade 3 in 4 (21%) patients. All patients with grade 3 AE received > 60 GyE (p=0.04, Spearman correlation coefficient=0.5). At the last follow-up, 90% of patients were alive with no LRR or distant recurrence. Conclusions: For breast cancer patients with isolated LRR after initial mastectomy without adjuvant RT, proton therapy is well-tolerated in the salvage setting with excellent loco-regional control. All grade 3 AEs occurred in patients receiving > 60 GyE.

Outcomes and toxicities after proton partial breast radiotherapy for early stage, hormone receptor positive breast cancer: 3-Year results of a phase II multi-center trial.

Purpose: Proton therapy (PT) for partial breast irradiation (PBI) in early-stage breast cancer can decrease morbidity versus photon PBI with superior organs-at-risk sparing. We report 3-year outcomes of the first prospective, multicenter, phase II trial of proton PBI. Methods and Materials: This Proton Collaborative Group phase II trial (PCG BRE007-12) recruited women ≥ 50 years with node-negative, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, ≤3cm, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) or ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing breast conserving surgery followed by proton PBI (40 Gy(RBE), 10 daily fractions). Primary endpoint was freedom from ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence. Adverse events were prospectively graded using CTCAEv4.0. Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) assessed patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL). Results: Thirty-eight evaluable patients enrolled between 2/2013-11/2016. Median age was 67 years (range 50-79); 55 % had left-sided disease, and median tumor size was 0.9 cm. Treatment was delivered in ≥ 2 fields predominantly with uniform scanning PT (n = 37). At 35-month median follow-up (12-62), all patients were alive, and none had local, regional or distant disease progression. One patient developed an ER-negative contralateral IDC. Seven grade 2 adverse events occurred; no radiotherapy-related grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred. Changes in BCTOS subdomain mean scores were maximum 0.36, indicating no meaningful change in PRQOL. Median heart volume receiving 5 Gy (V5Gy), lung V20Gy, and lung V10Gy were 0 %, 0 % and 0.19 %, respectively. Conclusion: At 3 years, proton PBI provided 100 % cancer control for early-stage, ER-positive breast cancer. Toxicities are minimal, and PRQOL remains acceptable with continued follow-up. These findings support PT as a safe and effective PBI delivery option.

Chemoradiation with Hypofractionated Proton Therapy in Stage II-III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Proton Collaborative Group Phase 2 Trial.

PURPOSE: Hypofractionated radiation therapy has been safely implemented in the treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but not locally advanced NSCLC owing to prohibitive toxicities with photon therapy. Proton therapy, however, may allow for safe delivery of hypofractionated radiation therapy. We sought to determine whether hypofractionated proton therapy with concurrent chemotherapy improves overall survival. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Proton Collaborative Group conducted a phase 1/2 single-arm nonrandomized prospective multicenter trial from 2013 through 2018. We received consent from 32 patients, of whom 28 were eligible for on-study treatment. Patients had stage II or III unresectable NSCLC (based on the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer's staging manual) and received hypofractionated proton therapy at 2.5 to 4 Gy per fraction to a total 60 Gy with concurrent platin-based doublet chemotherapy. The primary outcome was 1-year overall survival comparable to the 62% reported for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9410 trial. RESULTS: The trial closed early owing to slow accrual, in part, from a competing trial, RTOG 1308. Median patient age was 70 years (range, 50-86 years). Patients were predominantly male (n = 20), White (n = 23), and prior smokers (n = 27). Most had stage III NSCLC (n = 22), 50% of whom had adenocarcinoma. After a median follow-up of 31 months, the 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 89% and 49%, respectively, and progression-free survival rates were 58% and 32%, respectively. No acute grade ≥3 esophagitis occurred. Only 14% developed a grade ≥3 radiation-related pulmonary toxic effect. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated proton therapy delivered at 2.5 to 3.53 Gy per fraction to a total 60 Gy with concurrent chemotherapy provides promising survival, and additional examination through larger studies may be warranted.

Factors Associated With Acute Toxicity in Pediatric Patients Treated With Proton Radiation Therapy: A Report From the Pediatric Proton Consortium Registry.

PURPOSE: Limited prospective information regarding acute toxicity in pediatric patients receiving proton therapy (PT) exists. In this study, Pediatric Proton Consortium Registry (PPCR) data was analyzed for factors associated with development of acute toxicity in children receiving passively scattered or pencil beam scanning PT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Pediatric patients treated with PT and enrolled on the PPCR from 2016 to 2017 at 7 institutions were included. Data were entered on presence versus absence of acute general, cardiac, endocrine, eye, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, hematologic, mouth, musculoskeletal, neurologic, psychological, respiratory, and skin toxicities before (baseline) and at the end of PT (acute). Associations between patient and treatment variables with development of acute toxicity were assessed with multivariable modeling. RESULTS: Of 422 patients included, PT technique was passively scattered in 241 (57%), pencil beam scanning in 180 (43%), and missing in 1 (<1%) patient. Median age was 9.9 years. Daily anesthesia for treatment was used in 169 (40%). Treatments were categorized as craniospinal irradiation (CSI; n = 100, 24%), focal central nervous system PT (n = 157, 38%), or body PT (n = 158, 38%). Passively scattered PT was associated with increased risk of hematologic toxicity compared with pencil beam scanning PT (odds ratio [OR]: 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-6.70; P = .006). There were no other differences toxicities between PT techniques. Uninsured patients had increased risk of GI (OR: 2.71; 95% CI, 1.12-6.58; P = .027) and hematologic toxicity (OR: 10.67; 95% CI, 2.68-42.46; P <.001). Patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy were more likely to experience skin (OR: 2.45; 95% CI, 1.23-4.88; P = .011), hematologic (OR: 2.87; 95% CI, 1.31-6.25; P = .008), GI (OR: 2.37; 95% CI, 1.33-4.21; P = .003), and mouth toxicities (OR: 2.03; 95% CI, 1.10-3.73; P = .024). Patients receiving 49 to 55 Gy were more likely to experience skin (OR: 2.18; 95% CI, 1.06-4.44; P = .033) toxicity than those receiving <49 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: The PPCR registry highlights broad differences in acute toxicity rates in children receiving PT, and identifies opportunities for improvements in prevention, monitoring, and treatment of toxicities.

Variation in Proton Craniospinal Irradiation Practice Patterns in the United States: A Pediatric Proton Consortium Registry (PPCR) Study.

PURPOSE: Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) is commonly used for pediatric brain tumors with a propensity for spread in craniospinal fluid, principally medulloblastoma. Evolving technology has led to the use of highly conformal radiation therapy (RT) techniques for CSI, including proton therapy. Target delineation and plan coverage are critical for CSI, but there is ongoing controversy and variability in these realms, with little available data on practice patterns. We sought to characterize proton CSI practice patterns in the United States by examining CSI plans in the Pediatric Proton/Photon Consortium Registry (PPCR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PPCR was queried for data on proton CSI patients from 2015 to early 2020. Each plan was manually reviewed, determining patient position; prescription dose; and coverage of optic nerves, vertebral bodies, spinal nerve roots, sacral nerves, and cranial foramina, among other variables. Two radiation oncologists blinded to clinical data and treating institution assessed coverage at the 95% prescription isodose line and per published European Society for Paediatric Oncology guidelines. Variability in coverage was assessed with nonparametric tests and univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: PPCR supplied data for 450 patients, 384 of whom had an evaluable portion of a CSI plan. Most patients (90.3%) were supine. Optic nerves were fully covered in 48.2%; sacral nerves in 87.7%; cranial foramina in 69.3%; and spinal nerves in 95.6%. Vertebral body (VB) sparing was used in 18.6% of skeletally immature cases, increasing over time (P < .001). Coverage in all categories was significantly different among treating institutions, on univariate and multivariate analyses. Cribriform plate deficits were rare, with marginal misses of the foramen ovale (17.4%) and frontal lobe (12%) most common. CONCLUSION: We found consistent variation based on treating institution in proton CSI practices including optic nerve, VB, sacral nerve, cranial, and spinal nerve coverage. These data may serve as a baseline quantification of current proton CSI practices in the United States as they continue to evolve.

Radiation Induced Cavernomas in the Treatment of Pediatric Medulloblastoma: Comparative Study Between Proton and Photon Radiation Therapy.

Radiation induced cavernomas among children with medulloblastoma are common following external beam radiation (XRT) treatment with either photon or proton beams. However, with the increased utilization of proton beam therapy over the last decade we sought to determine if there was any difference in the development or natural history of these cavernous malformations (CM) or CM-like lesions. We performed a retrospective analysis of 79 patients from 2003 to 2019 who had undergone resection of medulloblastoma and subsequent XRT (30 photon or 49 proton beam therapy). The average age of patients at radiation treatment was 8.7 years old. Average follow up for patients who received photon beam therapy was 105 months compared to 56.8 months for proton beam therapy. A total of 68 patients (86.1%) developed post-radiation CMs, including 26 photon and 42 proton patients (86.7% and 85.7% respectively). The time to cavernoma development was significantly different, with a mean of 40.2 months for photon patients and 18.2 months for proton patients (p = 1.98 x 10-4). Three patients, one who received photon and two who received proton beam radiation, required surgical resection of a cavernoma. Although CM or CM-like lesions are detected significantly earlier in patients after receiving proton beam therapy, there appears to be no significant difference between the two radiation therapy modalities in the development of significant CM requiring surgical resection or intervention other than continued follow up and surveillance.

Risk of Pneumonitis and Outcomes After Mediastinal Proton Therapy for Relapsed/Refractory Lymphoma: A PTCOG and PCG Collaboration.

PURPOSE: Despite high response rates, there has been reluctance to use radiation therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) Hodgkin (HL) or aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) given concerns for subacute and late toxicities. Symptomatic pneumonitis, a subacute toxicity, has an incidence of 17% to 24% (≥grade 2) even with intensity modulated radiation therapy. Proton therapy (PT), which has no exit radiation dose, is associated with a lower dose to lung compared with other radiation techniques. As risk of radiation pneumonitis is associated with lung dose, we evaluated whether pneumonitis rates are lower with PT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Within an international, multi-institutional cohort, we retrospectively evaluated the incidence and grade of radiation pneumonitis (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4) among patients with r/r HL or NHL treated with PT. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients with r/r lymphoma (66% HL, 34% NHL; 46% primary chemorefractory) received thoracic PT from 2009 to 2017 in the consolidation (45%) or salvage (54%) setting. Median dose was 36 Gy(RBE). Before PT, patients underwent a median of 1 salvage systemic therapy (range, 0-4); 40% received PT within 4 months of transplant. With a median follow-up of 26.3 months among living patients, 11 patients developed symptomatic (grade 2) pneumonitis (12.8%). No grade 3 or higher pneumonitis was observed. Dose to lung, including mean lung dose, lung V5, and V20, significantly predicted risk of symptomatic pneumonitis, but not receipt of brentuximab, history of bleomycin toxicity, sex, or peritransplant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: PT for relapsed/refractory lymphoma was associated with favorable rates of pneumonitis compared with historical controls. We confirm that among patients treated with PT, pneumonitis risk is associated with mean lung and lung V20 dose. These findings highlight how advancements in radiation delivery may improve the therapeutic ratio for patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma. PT may be considered as a treatment modality for patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma in the consolidation or salvage setting.

Acute toxicities after proton beam therapy following breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: Multi-institutional prospective PCG registry analysis.

We investigated adverse events (AEs) and clinical outcomes for proton beam therapy (PBT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer. From 2012 to 2016, 82 patients received PBT in the prospective multi-institutional Proton Collaborative Group registry. AEs were recorded prospectively at each institution. Median follow-up was 8.1 months. Median dose was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Most patients received a lumpectomy bed boost (90%) and regional nodal irradiation (RNI)(83%). Six patients (7.3%) experienced grade 3 AEs (5 with dermatitis, 5 with breast pain). Body mass index (BMI) was associated with grade 3 dermatitis (P = .015). Fifty-eight patients (70.7%) experienced grade ≥2 dermatitis. PBT including RNI after BCS is well-tolerated. Elevated BMI is associated with grade 3 dermatitis.

ACR-ASTRO Practice Parameter for the Performance of Proton Beam Radiation Therapy.

AIM/OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: The American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) have jointly developed the following practice parameter for proton beam radiation therapy. Proton radiotherapy is the application of a high-energy proton beam to a patient in a clinical setting with therapeutic intent. Proton radiotherapy may permit improved therapeutic ratios with lower doses to sensitive normal structures and greater dose to target tumor tissues. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify published articles regarding clinical outcomes, reviews, quality assurance methodologies, and guidelines and standards for proton radiation therapy. Selected articles are referenced in the text. The following recommendations are based on firsthand experiences of multiple clinical authorities who employ proton therapy and have been peer reviewed by experts at different practicing institutions. RESULTS: This practice parameter is developed to serve as a tool in the appropriate application of this evolving technology in the care of cancer patients or other patients with conditions where radiation therapy is indicated. It addresses clinical implementation of proton radiation therapy, including personnel qualifications, quality assurance standards, indications, and suggested documentation. CONCLUSIONS: This practice parameter is a tool to guide technical use of proton therapy and does not assess the relative clinical indication of proton radiotherapy when compared with other forms of radiotherapy, but to focus on the best practices required to deliver proton therapy safely and effectively, when clinically indicated. Costs of proton treatments are high, and the economic costs of proton radiotherapy may also need to be considered.

A Multi-Institutional Experience of Proton Beam Therapy for Sinonasal Tumors.

PURPOSE: To report the outcomes of sinonasal tumors treated with proton beam therapy (PBT) on the Proton Collaborative Group registry study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty-nine patients with sinonasal tumors underwent curative intent PBT between 2010 and 2016. Patients who received de novo irradiation (42 patients) were analyzed separately from those who received reirradiation (27 patients) (re-RT). Median age was 53.1 years (range, 15.7-82.1; de novo) and 57.4 years (range, 31.3-88.0; re-RT). The most common histology was squamous cell carcinoma in both groups. Median PBT dose was 58.5 Gy (RBE) (range, 12-78.3; de novo) and 60.0 Gy (RBE) (range 18.2-72.3; re-RT), and median dose per fraction was 2.0 Gy (RBE) for both cohorts. Survival estimates for patients who received de novo irradiation and those who received re-RT were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Median follow-up for surviving patients was 26.4 months (range, 3.5-220.5). The 3-year overall survival (OS), freedom from distant metastasis, freedom from disease progression, and freedom from locoregional recurrence (FFLR) for de novo irradiation were 100%, 84.0%, 77.3%, and 92.9%, respectively. With re-RT, the 3-year OS, freedom from distant metastasis, FFDP, and FFLR were 76.2%, 47.4%, 32.1%, and 33.8%, respectively. In addition, 12 patients (17.4%) experienced recurrent disease. Re-RT was associated with inferior FFLR (P = .04). On univariate analysis, squamous cell carcinoma was associated with inferior OS (P < .01) for patients receiving re-RT. There were 11 patients with acute grade 3 toxicities. Late toxicities occurred in 15% of patients, with no grade ≥3 toxicities. No patients developed vision loss or symptomatic brain necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: As one of the largest studies of sinonasal tumors treated with PBT, our findings suggest that PBT may be a safe and efficacious treatment option for patients with sinonasal tumors.

Proton beam therapy reirradiation for breast cancer: Multi-institutional prospective PCG registry analysis.

To investigate adverse events (AEs, CTCAE v4.0) and clinical outcomes for proton beam therapy (PBT) reirradiation (reRT) for breast cancer. From 2011 to 2016, 50 patients received PBT reRT for breast cancer in the prospective Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) registry. Acute AEs occurred within 180 days from start of reRT. Late AEs began or persisted beyond 180 days. Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests were utilized. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate overall survival (OS) and local recurrence-free survival (LFRS). Median follow-up was 12.7 months (0-41.8). Median prior RT dose was 60 Gy (10-96.7). Median reRT dose was 55.1 Gy (45.1-76.3). Median cumulative dose was 110.6 Gy (70.6-156.8). Median interval between RT courses was 103.8 months (5.5-430.8). ReRT included regional nodes in 84% (66% internal mammary node [IMN]). Surgery included the following: 44% mastectomy, 22% wide local excision, 6% lumpectomy, 2% reduction mammoplasty, and 26% no surgery. Grade 3 AEs were experienced by 16% of patients (10% acute, 8% late) and were associated with body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2 (P = 0.04), bilateral recurrence (P = 0.02), and bilateral reRT (P = 0.004). All grade 3 AEs occurred in patients receiving IMN reRT (P = 0.08). At 1 year, LRFS was 93%, and OS was 97%. Patients with gross disease at time of PBT trended toward worse 1-year LRFS (100% without vs. 84% with, P = 0.06). PBT reRT is well tolerated with favorable local control. BMI > 30, bilateral disease, and IMN reRT were associated with grade 3 AEs. Toxicity was acceptable despite median cumulative dose > 110 Gy.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Recurrent Lung Cancer Reirradiated With Proton Therapy on the Proton Collaborative Group and University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute Prospective Registry Studies.

PURPOSE: We sought to assess clinical outcomes and toxicities of patients with recurrent lung cancer reirradiated with proton beam therapy (PBT) who were enrolled in 2 prospective registry trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventy-nine consecutive patients were reirradiated with PBT at 8 institutions. Conventionally fractionated radiation therapy was used to treat the previous lung cancer in 68% of patients (median equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions [EQD2], 60.2 Gy) and hypofractionated/stereotactic body radiation therapy in 32% (median EQD2, 83.3 Gy). Nine patients (11%) received ≥2 courses of thoracic irradiation before PBT. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was 2 to 3 in 13%. Median time from prior radiation therapy to PBT was 19.9 months. PBT was delivered with conventional fractionation in 58% (median EQD2, 60 Gy), hyperfractionation in 3% (median EQD2, 62.7 Gy), and hypofractionation in 39% (median EQD2, 60.4 Gy). Twenty-four patients (30%) received chemotherapy concurrently with PBT. RESULTS: All patients completed PBT as planned. At a median follow-up of 10.7 months after PBT, median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 15.2 months and 10.5 months, respectively. Acute and late grade 3 toxicities occurred in 6% and 1%, respectively. Three patients died after PBT from possible radiation toxicity. On multivariate analysis, ECOG performance status ≤1 was associated with OS (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.80; P = .014) and PFS (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.73; P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series to date of PBT reirradiation for recurrent lung cancer and indicates that reirradiation with PBT is well tolerated with acceptable toxicity and encouraging efficacy. ECOG performance status was associated with OS and PFS.

Proton therapy for thymic malignancies: multi-institutional patterns-of-care and early clinical outcomes from the proton collaborative group and the university of Florida prospective registries.

Objective: Thymic malignancies (TM) are rare tumors with long-term survivorship, causing concerns for radiotherapy-related late side effects. Proton therapy (PT) reduces the radiation dose to organs at risk, potentially decreasing long-term toxicities while preserving disease control. We report patterns-of-care and early clinical outcomes after PT for thymoma and thymic carcinoma. Methods: Between January 2008 and March 2017, 30 patients with TMs enrolled on one of two IRB-approved prospective protocols and received postoperative or definitive PT. Clinical outcomes, pathology, treatment dose, toxicities, and follow-up information were analyzed. Results: Twenty-two thymoma patients with a median age of 52.1 years (range, 23-72) received a median RT dose of 54 Gy (RBE) (range, 45-70) either postoperatively (91%) or definitively (9%); 23% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Among eight thymic carcinoma patients, the median age was 65.5 years (range, 38-88) and median RT dose was 60 Gy (RBE) (range, 42-70) delivered postoperatively (75%) or definitively (25%); 50% received chemotherapy. Median follow-up for all patients was 13 months (range, 2-59 months). Five patients relapsed, one locally (3%). Three patients died of disease progression, including two thymomas and one thymic carcinoma patient; a fourth died of intercurrent disease. One patient with thymic carcinoma and 1 with thymoma are alive with disease. No patients treated with PT for their initial disease (de novo) experienced grade ≥3 toxicities. The most common grade 2 toxicities were dermatitis (37%), cough (13%), and esophagitis (10%). Conclusion: Adjuvant and definitive PT are being used in the treatment of TMs. Early results of the largest such cohort reported to date demonstrates an acceptable rate of recurrence with a favorable toxicity profile. Longer follow-up and a larger patient cohort are needed to confirm these findings.

Using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to measure symptom burden reported by patients with brain tumors.

BACKGROUND: Children with brain tumors can experience symptom burden throughout their disease continuum. The aim of the study was to evaluate symptom burden reported by children with brain tumors and factors that potentially were associated with their symptoms. METHODS: Data from 199 children with brain tumors aged 7-22 (mean age = 14 years; 52% males; 76% white) were analyzed. Symptom burden was assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) via computerized adaptive testing (CAT)-anxiety, depression, fatigue, mobility, upper extremity function, peer relationship, and cognition. Patients and parents completed Symptom Distress Scales (SDS). Test statistics and ANOVA were used to evaluate relationships between PROMIS measures and potentially influential variables. RESULTS: Significant results (P < 0.01) showing impact of symptom burden included: PROMIS measures correlated with SDSs reported by patients and parents on all comparisons. Fatigue, mobility, and upper extremity function were associated with Karnofsky functional performance status, number of treatment modalities (0-3), and time since last treatment (≤1 year, >1 year). Fatigue and cognition were associated with educational program (regular classroom without an individualized education plan vs those that had an individualized education plan); mobility and upper extremity function were associated with time since last radiation. Mobility, upper extremity function, and anxiety were associated with time since last chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Significant associations were found between PROMIS and SDS as well as clinical and demographic characteristics. Brief-yet-precise PROMIS CATs can be used to systematically assess symptom burden experienced by children with brain tumors.