ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Compared with photon-based techniques, proton beam radiation therapy (PBT) may improve the therapeutic ratio of radiation therapy (RT) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), but available data have been limited to single-institutional experiences. This study examined the toxicity, survival, and disease control rates among patients enrolled in a multi-institutional prospective registry study and treated with PBT for LAPC. Methods and Materials: Between March 2013 and November 2019, 19 patients with inoperable disease across 7 institutions underwent PBT with definitive intent for LAPC. Patients received a median radiation dose/fractionation of 54 Gy/30 fractions (range, 50.4-60.0 Gy/19-33 fractions). Most received prior (68.4%) or concurrent (78.9%) chemotherapy. Patients were assessed prospectively for toxicities using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to analyze overall survival, locoregional recurrence-free survival, time to locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis-free survival, and time to new progression or metastasis for the adenocarcinoma cohort (17 patients). Results: No patients experienced grade ≥3 acute or chronic treatment-related adverse events. Grade 1 and 2 adverse events occurred in 78.7% and 21.3% of patients, respectively. Median overall survival, locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and time to new progression or metastasis were 14.6, 11.0, 11.0, and 13.9 months, respectively. Freedom from locoregional recurrence at 2 years was 81.7%. All patients completed treatment with one requiring a RT break for stent placement. Conclusions: Proton beam RT for LAPC offered excellent tolerability while still maintaining disease control and survival rates comparable with dose-escalated photon-based RT. These findings are consistent with the known physical and dosimetric advantages offered by proton therapy, but the conclusions are limited owing to the patient sample size. Further clinical studies incorporating dose-escalated PBT are warranted to evaluate whether these dosimetric advantages translate into clinically meaningful benefits.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: When treating esophageal cancer with radiation therapy, it is critical to limit the dose to surrounding structures, such as the lung and/or heart, as much as possible. Proton radiation therapy allows a reduced radiation dose to both the heart and lungs, potentially reducing the risk of cardiopulmonary toxicity. Here, we report disease control, survival, and toxicity outcomes among patients with esophageal cancer treated with proton radiation therapy and concurrent chemotherapy (chemoradiation therapy; CRT) with or without surgery. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 17 patients with thoracic esophageal carcinoma on a prospective registry between 2010 and 2021. Patients received proton therapy to a median dose of 50.4-GyRBE (range, 50.4-64.8) in 1.8-Gy fractions.Acute and late toxicities were graded per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0 (US National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland). In addition, disease control, patterns of failure, and survival outcomes were collected. Results: Nine patients received preoperative CRT, and 8 received definitive CRT. Overall, 88% of patients had adenocarcinoma, and 12% had squamous cell carcinoma. With a median follow-up of 2.1 years (range, 0.5-9.4), the 3-year local progression-free, disease-free, and overall survival rates were 85%, 66%, and 55%, respectively. Two patients (1 with adenocarcinoma and 1 with squamous cell carcinoma) recurred at the primary site after refusing surgery after a complete clinical response to CRT. The most common acute nonhematologic and hematologic toxicities, respectively, were grades 1 to 3 esophagitis and grades 1 to 4 leukopenia, both affecting 82% of patients. No acute cardiopulmonary toxicities were observed in the absence of surgical resection. Reagarding surgical complications, 3 postoperative cardiopulmonary complications occurred as follows: 1 grade 1 pleural effusion, 1 grade 3 pleural effusion, and 1 grade 2 anastomotic leak. Two severe late CRT toxicities occurred: 1 grade 5 tracheoesophageal fistula and 1 grade 3 esophageal stenosis requiring a feeding tube. Conclusion: Proton radiation therapy is a safe, effective treatment for esophageal cancer with increasing evidence supporting its role in reducing cardiopulmonary toxicity.
ABSTRACT
The outcome of the patient and the success of clinical trials involving RT is dependent on the quality assurance of the RT plans. Knowledge-based Planning (KBP) models using data from a library of high-quality plans have been utilized in radiotherapy to guide treatment. In this study, we report on the use of these machine learning tools to guide the quality assurance of multicenter clinical trial plans. The data from 130 patients submitted to RTOG1308 were included in this study. Fifty patient cases were used to train separate photon and proton models on a commercially available platform based on principal component analysis. Models evaluated 80 patient cases. Statistical comparisons were made between the KBP plans and the original plans submitted for quality evaluation. Both photon and proton KBP plans demonstrate a statistically significant improvement of quality in terms of organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing. Proton KBP plans, a relatively emerging technique, show more improvements compared with photon plans. The KBP proton model is a useful tool for creating proton plans that adhere to protocol requirements. The KBP tool was also shown to be a useful tool for evaluating the quality of RT plans in the multicenter clinical trial setting.
ABSTRACT
Background: To compare patterns-of-care and clinical outcomes among uninsured versus insured patients (IPs) with anorectal malignancies referred for radiotherapy at an urban safety-net hospital. This topic is important because uninsured patients (UPs) in the US often have limited access to health care, which can result in worse health outcomes. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 59 patients with biopsy-proven, non-metastatic anal and rectal cancers who received curative-intent primary or neoadjuvant/adjuvant radiotherapy between May 2002 and August 2012. Data regarding patient and disease characteristics, weight loss, insurance status at symptom onset, date of first therapeutic intervention, and survival status at last follow-up, were collected and analyzed. Results: The percentage of IPs presenting with T4 tumors was 7% versus 40% among the uninsured (P=0.005). The median interval between first symptom onset and diagnosis date was 89 (range, 0-1,428) days for IPs and 221 (range, 0-1,576) days for UPs (P=0.01). The median interval between first symptom onset and treatment initiation was 172 (range, 9-1,498) days for IPs and 302 (range, 35-1,624 days) days for UPs (P=0.01). The 5-year overall survival rate was 59% for the entire cohort, 62% for the insured patients, and 55% for the uninsured patients (P=0.76). Conclusions: Differences in health insurance status demonstrated various disparities in patterns-of-care, including significant delay in diagnosis, more advanced-stage disease at presentation, and treatment initiation delays among UPs. Nevertheless, overall survival at 5 years was not statistically significant between the insured and the uninsured.
ABSTRACT
Background: To report outcomes of a phase II single-institution trial of dose-escalated proton radiotherapy with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) and concomitant chemotherapy for patients with unresectable, borderline resectable, or medically inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods: Patients received 40.5 GyRBE in 18 fractions to the gross disease and elective nodal volumes followed by 22.5 GyRBE as a 10-fraction boost to the gross disease for a cumulative dose of 63 GyRBE over 28 fractions. Oral capecitabine (1,000 mg taken orally twice daily) was given on radiation treatment days. The primary objective of this study was to improve the proportion surviving to at least 1 year from the historical rate of 50% to 75%. Secondary objectives included assessing gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and weight loss during treatment, and evaluating the safety of subsequent surgical resection. This single-institution study was closed to accrual early after the opening of the multicenter PAN009-18 trial by the Proton Collaborative Group (PCG), which follows a similar protocol. Results: At enrollment, 10 (67%) patients had unresectable disease, 3 (20%) had borderline-resectable disease, and 2 (13%) refused surgery. All 15 patients successfully completed radiation therapy as prescribed. With regard to toxicity, a single patient experienced grade 3 nausea requiring cessation of capecitabine, which ultimately resolved by treatment completion. The median percentage weight loss during treatment was -3.0% (range, -9.6% to +12.0%). Two (13%) initially borderline patients ultimately underwent R0 resection: their total operating room times were 267 and 410 minutes, and blood loss was 700 and 400 mL, respectively. Neither patient experienced intraoperative or postoperative complications. Both were discharged on postoperative day 6. The median follow-up was 0.93 years (range, 0.21 to 2.14 years). The 1-year overall survival (OS) rate was 47%. Three enrolled patients are currently alive: 2 with no evidence of disease and 1 with stable disease. Conclusions: The primary objective of 1-year OS of 75% was not reached. Proton therapy was well-tolerated. Patients undergoing surgery did not experience operative or perioperative complications, suggesting that patients with borderline resectable or even resectable disease may benefit from neoadjuvant proton therapy. The PCG will test this premise as patients accrue to the multicenter PAN009-18 trial. Trial Registration: NCT02598349.
ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Esophagitis , Lung Neoplasms , Proton Therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/radiotherapy , Esophagitis/pathology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Staging , Prospective Studies , Proton Therapy/adverse effects , ProtonsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To determine factors that influence insurance approval for definitive proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2014 and 2018, 1592 insured patients with localized prostate cancer were evaluated and recommended to undergo definitive PT; 547 patients (34.4%) had commercial insurance, whereas 1045 patients (65.6%) had Medicare/Medicaid. Of those with Medicare, 164 patients (15.7%) had Medicare alone; 677 (64.8%) had supplemental plans; and 204 (19.5%) had secondary commercial insurance. Insurance that "covered" PT for prostate cancer implied that it was an indication designated in the coverage policy. "Not covered" means that the insurance policy did not list prostate cancer as an indication for PT. Of all 1592 patients, 1263 (79.3%) belonged to plans that covered PT per policy. However, approval for PT was still required via medical review for 619 patients (38.9%), comparative dosimetry for 56 patients (3.5%), peer-to-peer discussion for 234 patients (14.7%), and administrative law judge hearings for 3 patients (<0.1%). Multivariate analyses of factors affecting approval were conducted, including risk group (low/intermediate versus high), insurance type (commercial versus Medicare/Medicaid), whether PT was included as a covered benefit under the plan (covered versus not covered), and time period (2014-16 versus 2017 versus 2018). RESULTS: On multivariate analysis, factors affecting PT approval for prostate treatment included coverage of PT per policy (97.1% had approval with insurance that covered PT versus 48.6% whose insurance did not cover PT; P < .001); insurance type (32.5% had approval with commercial insurance versus 97.4% with Medicare; P < .001); and time, with 877/987 patients (88.9%) approved between 2014 and 2016, 255/312 patients (81.7%) approved during 2017, and 255/293 patients (87.0%) approved thereafter (P = .02). Clinical factors, including risk group, had no bearing on insurance approval (P = .44). CONCLUSION: Proton insurance approval for prostate cancer has decreased, is most influenced by the type of insurance a patient belongs to, and is unrelated to clinical factors (risk group) in this study. More work is needed to help navigate appropriate access to care and to assist patients seeking definitive PT for prostate cancer treatment.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the planning target volume (PTV) margins needed for prostate patients who have used hydrogel spacer or rectal balloon during proton treatments. METHOD: Total of 190 prostate patients treated with proton therapy during 2017 were selected for this study. Of these patients, 96 had hydrogel spacer injection and 94 patients had only rectal balloons insertion. All patients had implanted gold markers inside the prostate for daily target alignment. Post-treatment radigraphs were obtained to evaluate prostate intrafraction motion. The systematic and random components of patient setup residual error and prostate intrafraction motion error were obtained. PTV margins were calculated using the van Herk formula for both patient groups. RESULTS: For setup residual error, the mean values in the superior-inferior (SI) direction and the variances in the left-right (LR) direction were statistically different between the two groups. For intrafraction motion, there were significant differences of the mean values in the SI direction and of the variances in both LR and anterior-posterior (AP) directions. The population PTV margins for hydrogel spacer group were 2.6 mm, 3.3 mm, and 1.6 mm in LR, SI, AP directions, respectively. For the rectal balloon group, the PTV margins were 2.1 mm, 3.1 mm, and 2.0 mm in LR, SI, AP directions, respectively. CONCLUSION: Statistically significant differences were observed in the patient setup and prostate intrafraction motion errors of the two patient groups. However, under the current protocol of bladder preparation and daily marker-based x-ray image-guidance, population PTV margins were comparable between the two patient groups.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Proton Therapy , Humans , Hydrogels , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We report the safety data from the first multicenter phase 1 trial investigating the use of hypofractionated proton therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for patients with stage II or III non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2013 through 2018, patients with newly diagnosed stage II or III non-small cell lung cancer were enrolled in a multicenter phase 1 clinical trial evaluating concurrent chemotherapy with increasing dose-per-fraction proton therapy. This was a stepwise 5 + 2 dose-intensification protocol with the following dose arms: (1) 2.5 GyRBE per fraction to 60 GyRBE; (2) 3.0 GyRBE per fraction to 60 GyRBE; (3) 3.53 GyRBE per fraction to 60.01 GyRBE; and (4) 4.0 GyRBE per fraction to 60 GyRBE. A dose arm was considered tolerable if no radiation therapy-attributable severe adverse event (SAE) occurred within 90 days of treatment among 5 patients enrolled on the arm or if 1 SAE occurred among 7 patients enrolled. Dose constraints to the heart, brachial plexus, and spinal cord were more conservative at higher doses per fraction. RESULTS: The study closed early because of slow accrual and competing enrollment in NRG 1308 before accrual was met, with no maximum tolerated dose identified. Eighteen patients were treated, including 5 patients on arms 1 and 2, 7 patients on arm 3, and 1 patient on arm 4. Two SAEs occurred among 7 patients treated at 3.53 GyRBE per fraction; however, per outside expert review, both were attributed to chemotherapy and unrelated to radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated proton therapy delivered at 2.5 to 3.53 GyRBE per fraction to a dose of 60 GyRBE with concurrent chemotherapy has an acceptable toxicity profile. Further exploration of this regimen is warranted on a phase 2 clinical trial.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/pathology , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/radiotherapy , Dose Fractionation, Radiation , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Lung Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Proton Therapy/adverse effects , Safety , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Chemoradiotherapy/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Middle AgedABSTRACT
Pancreatic carcinoma is a challenging malignancy to manage with a very poor prognosis. Despite continued difficulties in its management, there have been incremental improvements in outcomes over the past several decades. Achieving the best oncologic outcomes requires a multimodality approach including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Proton radiotherapy enables the delivery of high-dose radiotherapy to the tumor or resection bed while sparing nearby critical organs. Due to their unique physical properties, protons can deliver radiotherapy dose distributions that are not achievable with photons (X-rays) even with advanced photon delivery techniques (e.g., intensity-modulated radiotherapy). Improved dose distributions can lead to reduced treatment toxicity and enable treatment intensification. As better chemotherapy regimens lead to better systemic disease control, it will become increasingly important that local-regional control is achieved. This will in part be accomplished by combining better radiotherapy with more active chemotherapies. Proton radiotherapy provides an excellent means for achieving this.
ABSTRACT
Approximately 25% of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer present with non-metastatic resectable or borderline resectable disease. Unfortunately, the cure rate for these "curable" patients is only in the range of 20%. Local-regional failure rates may exceed 50% after margin-negative, node-negative pancreatectomy, but up to 80% of resections are associated with regional lymph node or margin positivity. While systemic drug therapy and chemotherapy may prevent or delay the appearance of distant metastases, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on local-regional disease control. Preoperative radiotherapy would represent a rational intervention to improve local-regional control. The barrier to preoperative radiotherapy is the concern that it could potentially complicate what is already a long and complicated operation. When the radiotherapy is delivered with X-rays (photons), the entire cylinder of the abdomen is irradiated; therefore, an operating surgeon may be reluctant to accept the associated risk of increased toxicity. When preoperative radiotherapy is delivered with protons, however, significant bowel and gastric tissue-sparing is achieved and clinical outcomes indicate that proton therapy does not increase the risk of operative complications nor extend the length of the procedure.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Radiation-induced tumor immunity (RITI) influences primary tumor growth and development of metastases in preclinical cancer models with conventional radiotherapy. Antigen-specific immune responses have also been shown for prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. We examined whether RITI can be induced in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following proton radiotherapy. METHODS: Pre- and post-radiotherapy plasma samples from 26 patients with nonmetastatic NSCLC who received radiotherapy between 2010 and 2012 were evaluated by western blotting for IgG and IgM bands to assess RITI response to tumor antigens from lung cancer cell lines. Statistical analysis was used to evaluate any correlation among IgG or IgM and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients received proton therapy at 2 GyRBE/fraction (n = 17) or 6-12 Gy/fraction (n = 4); five received photon therapy at 2-2.5 GyRBE/fraction. Compared with the pretreatment baseline, new IgG or IgM binding was detected in 27% and 50% of patients, respectively. New IgG bands were detected in the 25-37 kD, 50-75 kD, and 75-100 kD ranges. New IgM bands were detected in the 20-25 kD, 25-37 kD, 37-50 kD, 50-75 kD, and 75-100 kD ranges. There was no difference in IgG and/or IgM RITI response in patients treated with photons versus protons, or in patients who received SBRT compared to standard fractionation (P > 0.05). There was no difference in overall survival, metastasis-free survival, or local control based on IgG and/or IgM RITI response (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: RITI can be induced in patients with NSCLC through upregulated IgG and/or IgM. RITI response was not associated with proton versus photon therapy or with clinical outcomes in this small cohort and should be examined in a larger cohort in future studies.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neoplasm/immunology , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/radiotherapy , Immunoglobulin G/metabolism , Immunoglobulin M/metabolism , Lung Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Proton Therapy/adverse effects , A549 Cells , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/immunology , Cell Line, Tumor , Dose Fractionation, Radiation , Female , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Survival Analysis , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of unfavorable risk factors among patients with locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) treated with proton therapy (PT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: From May 2008 through July 2015, 90 consecutive patients with unresectable stage II-IV (oligometastatic) NSCLC were treated with PT. Unfavorable factors including age ≥80 years, stage IV, weight loss >10% in 3 months, performance status (PS) ≥2, FEV1 < 1.0 or O2 dependency, prior lung cancer, prior lung surgery, prior 2nd cancer in the past 3 years, and prior chest irradiation were evaluated. All patients received standard fractionation of 1.8-2 Gy(RBE) (median dose, 70 Gy[RBE]). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. The impact of unfavorable factors was analyzed in Cox regression models. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent were favorable-risk, while 42%, 22%, and 10% had 1-, 2-, or ≥3 unfavorable factors. The 2-year OS was 52% and 45% (p = .8522), and 2-year PFS was 21% and 44% (p = .0207), for favorable and unfavorable risk patients, respectively. Among patients with stage III-IV, only PS ≥2 adversely impacted OS (p = .0015). CONCLUSION: Most patients treated with PT for LA-NSCLC have unfavorable risk factors. These patients had similar outcomes to favorable-risk patients. Enrollment in future clinical trials may improve if eligibility is less restrictive.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/radiotherapy , Lung Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Proton Therapy/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/mortality , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/surgery , Disease-Free Survival , Dose Fractionation, Radiation , Female , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy , Lung Neoplasms/mortality , Lung Neoplasms/surgery , Male , Middle Aged , Proton Therapy/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of proton centers capable of delivering pencil beam scanning (PBS), understanding the dosimetric differences in PBS compared to passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) for pancreatic cancer is of interest. METHODS: Optimized PBS plans were retrospectively generated for 11 patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with PSPT to 59.4 Gy on a prospective trial. The primary tumor was targeted without elective nodal coverage. The same treatment couch, target coverage and normal tissue dose objectives were used for all plans. A Wilcoxon t-test was performed to compare various dosimetric points between the two plans for each patient. RESULTS: All target volume coverage goals were met in all PBS and passive scattering (PS) plans, except for the planning target volume (PTV) coverage goal (V100% >95%) which was not met in one PS plan (range, 81.8-98.9%). PBS was associated with a lower median relative dose (102.4% vs. 103.8%) to 10% of the PTV (P=0.001). PBS plans had a lower median duodenal V59.4 Gy (37.4% vs. 40.4%; P=0.014), lower small bowel median V59.4 Gy (0.11% vs. 0.37%; P=0.012), lower stomach median V59.4 Gy (0.01% vs. 0.1%; P=0.023), and lower median dose to 0.1 cc of the spinal cord {35.0 vs. 38.7 Gy [relative biological effectiveness (RBE)]; P=0.001}. Liver dose was higher in PBS plans for median V5 Gy (24.1% vs. 20.2%; P=0.032), V20 Gy (3.2% vs. 2.8%; P=0.010), and V25 Gy (2.6% vs. 2.2%; P=0.019). There was no difference in kidney dose between PBS and PS plans. CONCLUSIONS: Proton therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer using PBS was not clearly associated with clinically meaningful reductions in normal tissue dose compared to PS. Some statistically significant improvements in PTV coverage were achieved using PBS. PBS may offer improved conformality for the treatment of irregular targets, and further evaluation of PBS and PS incorporating elective nodal irradiation should be considered.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We investigated long-term outcomes for men ≤60 years old treated with proton therapy (PT). METHODS: Of 254 men ≤60 years old were treated with proton therapy alone for prostate cancer. Risk stratification included 56% with low-, 42% with intermediate- and 2% with high-risk disease. Patients received 76-82 Gy at 2 Gy/fraction or 70-72.5 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction. Before treatment and every 6-12 months for 5 years, patients were evaluated by a physician, answered health-related quality of life surveys, including the EPIC, IIEF and IPSS, and had PSA evaluated. RESULTS: Median follow-up for the cohort was 7.1 years; 7-year biochemical-free survival was 97.8%. Eight men (one high-risk; five intermediate-risk and two low-risk) experienced biochemical progression, including one who died of disease 9 years after treatment. Potency (erections firm enough for sexual intercourse) was 90% at baseline and declined to 72% at the first-year follow-up, but declined to only 67% at 5 years. Only 2% of patients developed urinary incontinence requiring pads. The bowel habits mean score declined from a baseline of 96 to 88 at 1 year, which improved over the following years to 93 at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Young men with prostate cancer continue to have excellent results with respect to 7-year biochemical control and 5-year erectile function, without clinically significant urinary incontinence 5 years after proton therapy. Comparative effectiveness studies of proton therapy with surgery and IMRT are needed.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Proton Therapy/adverse effects , Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological/etiology , Sexual Health , Adult , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Quality of Life , Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological/epidemiology , Treatment OutcomeSubject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/radiotherapy , Lung Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Proton Therapy/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/epidemiology , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/pathology , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Staging , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Proton Therapy/statistics & numerical data , Radiotherapy Dosage , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Time FactorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The present study investigates the impact of scatter dose radiation to the testis on ejaculate and sperm counts from treatment of prostate cancer with passive-scatter proton therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From March 2010 to November 2014, 20 men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer enrolled in an IRB-approved protocol and provided a semen sample prior to passive-scatter proton therapy and 6-12 months following treatment. Men were excluded if they had high-risk prostate cancer, received androgen deprivation therapy, were on alpha blockers (due to retrograde ejaculation) prior to treatment, had baseline sperm count <1 million, or were unable to produce a pre-treatment sample or could not provide a follow-up specimen. Sperm counts of 0 were considered azoospermia and <15 million/ml were classified as oligospermia. RESULTS: Four patients were unable to provide a sufficient quantity of semen for analysis. Among the 16 remaining patients, only one was found to have oligospermia (7 million/ml). There was a statistically significant reduction in semen volume (median, 0.5 ml) and increase in pH (median 0.5). Although not statistically significant, there appeared to be a decline in sperm concentration (median, 16 million/ml), total sperm count (median, 98.5 million), normal morphology (median, 9%), and rapid progressive motility (median, 9.5%). DISCUSSION: Men did not have azoospermia 6-12 months following passive-scatter proton therapy indicating minimal scatter radiation to the testis during treatment. Changes in semen quantity and consistency may occur due to prostate irradiation, which could impact future fertility and/or sexual activity.
Subject(s)
Fertility/radiation effects , Neutrons , Prostatic Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Proton Therapy , Semen Preservation , Spermatogenesis/radiation effects , Aged , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Grading , Neoplasm Staging , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare 5-year biochemical control, toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life (QOL) outcomes for African American and White patients treated with proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 1,066 men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Patients were treated with definitive PT between 2006 and 2010. Patients received a median radiation dose of 78 Gy (RBE) with conventional fractionation (1.8- 2 Gy [RBE] per fraction). Sixty-eight (6.4%) men self-identified as African American and 998 (93.6%) self-identified as White. Five-year rates of biochemical control, grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, and patient-reported QOL are reported and compared between African American and White patients. RESULTS: Median biochemical follow-up was 5.0 years for both African American and White patients. Median follow-up for toxicity was 5.0 and 5.2 years, respectively. On multivariate analysis, race was not a significant predictor for 5-year freedom from biochemical failure (HR 0.8, p=0.55). No significant association was found between race and grade 3 genitourinary toxicity on multivariate analysis at 5 years (HR 2.5, p=0.10). Patient-reported QOL using median EPIC bowel, urinary incontinence, and irritative summaries scores were not significantly different between the groups. African Americans had higher median sexual summary scores at 2 years than White patients (75 vs. 54, p=0.01) but by 5+ years, the sexual summary scores were no longer significantly different (63 vs. 53, p=0.35). CONCLUSION: With a median follow-up of 5 years, there were no racial disparities in biochemical control, grade 3 toxicity, or patient-reported QOL after PT for prostate cancer.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Local recurrence of prostate cancer after cryosurgery (CS) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is an emerging problem for which optimal management is unknown. Proton therapy (PT) may offer advantages over other local therapeutic options. This article reviews a single institution's experience using PT for salvage of local recurrent disease after HIFU or CS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed the medical records of 21 consecutive patients treated with salvage PT following a local recurrence of prostate cancer after CS (n=12) or HIFU (n=9) between January 2007 and July 2014. Patients were treated to a median dose of 74 Gy(relative biological effectiveness [RBE]; range: 74-82 Gy[RBE]) and 8 patients received androgen deprivation therapy with radiation therapy. Patients were evaluated for quality of life (QOL) by using the Expanded Prostate Index Composite questionnaire and toxicity by using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0, weekly during treatment, every 6 months for 2 years after treatment, and then annually. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 37 months (range: 6-95 months). The 3-year biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) rate was 77%. The 3-year grade 3 toxicity rate was 17%; however, 2 of these patients had pre-existing grade 3 GU toxicities from their HIFU/CRYO prior to PT. At 1 year, bowel summary, urinary incontinence, and urinary obstructive QOL scores declined, but only the bowel QOL score at 12 months met the minimally important difference threshold. CONCLUSIONS: PT achieved a high rate of bPFS with acceptable toxicity and minimal changes in QOL scores compared with baseline pre-PT functions. Although most patients have done fairly well, the study size is small, follow-up is short, and early results suggest that outcomes with PT for salvage after HIFU or CS failure are inferior to outcomes with PT given in the de novo setting with respect to disease control, toxicity, and QOL.