Proton Therapy for Unresectable and Medically Inoperable Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Results From a Multi-Institutional Prospective Registry.

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.

Implementation of Machine Learning Models to Ensure Radiotherapy Quality for Multicenter Clinical Trials: Report from a Phase III Lung Cancer Study.

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.

Proton Therapy Outcomes for Head and Neck Cutaneous Melanoma: Proton Collaborative Group Analysis.

Purpose: Reports of proton beam therapy (PBT) utilization for cutaneous melanoma of the head and neck (HN) region is virtually non-existent. This study reports on the efficacy and acute toxicities of PBT for primary HN cutaneous melanoma. Materials and Methods: We queried the prospectively collected, multi-institutional Proton Collaborative Group registry for all consecutive patients with HN cutaneous melanoma receiving PBT from May 2010 to December 2019. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and local regional recurrence free survival (LRFS). Toxicity was reported per CTCAE version 4.0. Results: A total of 8 patients were identified with a median age of 69 (range, 37-88). All patients (100%) underwent surgery followed with postoperative PBT. There were 3 patients (37.5%) with T3 or T4 disease and 4 (50%) with N2 or N3 disease. The median radiation dose was 46 GyRBE (range, 27-70) and median dose per fraction was 2.4 GyRBE (range, 2.0-6.0) with the most common dose fractionation being 44 or 48 GyRBE in 20 fractions (n = 4). At a median follow-up of 40.1 months (range, 1.6-62.4) the 1 and 3 year OS rates were 85.7% and 35.7%, respectively. The median PFS was 25.40 months (95% CI, 2.53-58.70) while PFS at 1 year and 3 years was 85.7% and 35.7%, respectively. LRFS was 100% at 1 year and 85.7% at 3 years. Five of the 8 patients developed distant metastases, of which 3 received immunotherapy. Acute G2+ and G3+ toxicities occurred in 5 of 8 patients and 2 of 8 patients, respectively. G3 toxicities included radiation dermatitis (n = 1) and immunotherapy-related rash (n = 1). No G4+ toxicities were reported. Conclusion: Single modality PBT for HN melanomas in the definitive setting provides effective and durable local control rates with tolerable acute toxicity. Distant failure remains the primary pattern of failure.

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.

Work Outcomes after Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) versus Intensity-Modulated Photon Therapy (IMRT) for Oropharyngeal Cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared work outcomes in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), randomized to intensity-modulated proton (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for chemoradiation therapy (CRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 147 patients with stage II-IVB squamous cell OPC participating in patient-reported outcomes assessments, a prespecified secondary aim of a randomized phase II/III trial of IMPT (n = 69) versus IMRT (n = 78), we compared absenteeism, presenteeism (i.e., the extent to which an employee is not fully functional at work), and work productivity losses. We used the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire at baseline (pre-CRT), at the end of CRT, and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. A one-sided Cochran-Armitage test was used to analyze within-arm temporal trends, and a χ2 test was used to compare between-arm differences. Among working patients, at each follow-up point, a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare work-productivity scores. RESULTS: Patient characteristics in IMPT versus IMRT arms were similar. In the IMPT arm, within-arm analysis demonstrated that an increasing proportion of patients resumed working after IMPT, from 60% (40 of 67) pre-CRT and 71% (30 of 42) at 1 year to 78% (18 of 23) at 2 years (P = 0.025). In the IMRT arm, the proportion remained stable, with 57% (43 of 76) pre-CRT, 54% (21 of 39) at 1 year, and 52% (13 of 25) working at 2 years (P = 0.47). By 2 years after CRT, the between-arm difference between patients who had IMPT and those who had IMRT trended toward significance (P = 0.06). Regardless of treatment arm, among working patients, the most severe work impairments occurred from treatment initiation to the end of CRT, with significant recovery from absenteeism, presenteeism, and productivity impairments by the 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001 for all). Higher magnitudes of recovery from absenteeism (at 1 year, P = 0.05; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) and composite work impairment scores (at 1 year, P = 0.04; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) were seen in patients treated with IMPT versus those treated with IMRT. CONCLUSION: In patients with OPC receiving curative CRT, patients randomized to IMPT demonstrated increasing work and productivity recovery trends. Studies are needed to identify mechanisms underlying head and neck CRT treatment causing work disability and impairment.

The Reality of Randomized Controlled Trials for Assessing the Benefit of Proton Therapy: Critically Examining the Intent-to-Treat Principle in the Presence of Insurance Denial.

PURPOSE: This study hypothesized that insurance denial would lead to bias and loss of statistical power when evaluating the results from an intent-to-treat (ITT), per-protocol, and as-treated analyses using a simulated randomized clinical trial comparing proton therapy to intensity modulated radiation therapy where patients incurred increasing rates of insurance denial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Simulations used a binary endpoint to assess differences between treatment arms after applying ITT, per-protocol, and as-treated analyses. Two scenarios were developed: 1 with clinical success independent of age and another assuming dependence on age. Insurance denial was assumed possible for patients <65 years. All scenarios considered an age distribution with mean ± standard deviation: 55 ± 15 years, rates of insurance denial ranging from 0%-40%, and a sample of N = 300 patients (150 per arm). Clinical success rates were defined as 70% for proton therapy and 50% for intensity modulated radiation therapy. The average treatment effect, bias, and power were compared after applying 5000 simulations. RESULTS: Increasing rates of insurance denial demonstrated inherent weaknesses among all 3 analytical approaches. With clinical success independent of age, a per-protocol analysis demonstrated the least bias and loss of power. When clinical success was dependent on age, the per-protocol and ITT analyses resulted in a similar trend with respect to bias and loss of power, with both outperforming the as-treated analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Insurance denial leads to misclassification bias in the ITT analysis, a missing data problem in the per-protocol analysis, and covariate imbalance between treatment arms in the as-treated analysis. Moreover, insurance denial forces the critical appraisal of patient features (eg, age) affected by the denial and potentially influencing clinical success. In the presence of insurance denial, our study suggests cautious reporting of ITT and as-treated analyses, and placing primary emphasis on the results of the per-protocol analysis.

Hypofractionated Proton Therapy with Concurrent Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase 1 Trial from the University of Florida and Proton Collaborative Group.

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.

Comparison of acute and late toxicities for three modern high-dose radiation treatment techniques for localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities in prostate cancer patients treated with three different high-dose radiation techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 1,903 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with definitive RT at William Beaumont Hospital from 1992 to 2006: 22% with brachytherapy alone (BT), 55% with image-guided external beam (EB-IGRT), and 23% external beam with high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (EBRT+HDR). Median dose with BT was 120 Gy for LDR and 38 Gy for HDR (9.5 Gy × 4). Median dose with EB-IGRT was 75.6 Gy (PTV) to prostate with or without seminal vesicles. For EBRT+HDR, the pelvis was treated to 46 Gy with an additional 19 Gy (9.5 Gy × 2) delivered via HDR. GI and GU toxicity was evaluated utilizing the NCI-CTC criteria (v.3.0). Median follow-up was 4.8 years. RESULTS: The incidences of any acute ≥ Grade 2 GI or GU toxicities were 35%, 49%, and 55% for BT, EB-IGRT, and EBRT+HDR (p < 0.001). Any late GU toxicities ≥ Grade 2 were present in 22%, 21%, and 28% for BT, EB-IGRT, and EBRT+HDR (p = 0.01), respectively. Patients receiving EBRT+HDR had a higher incidence of urethral stricture and retention, whereas dysuria was most common in patients receiving BT. Any Grade ≥ 2 late GI toxicities were 2%, 20%, and 9% for BT, EB-IGRT, and EBRT+HDR (p < 0.001). Differences were most pronounced for rectal bleeding, with 3-year rates of 0.9%, 20%, and 6% (p < 0.001) for BT, EB-IGRT, and EBRT+HDR respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Each of the three modern high-dose radiation techniques for localized prostate cancer offers a different toxicity profile. These data can help patients and physicians to make informed decisions regarding radiotherapy for prostate andenocarcinoma.

Comparison of IGRT registration strategies for optimal coverage of primary lung tumors and involved nodes based on multiple four-dimensional CT scans obtained throughout the radiotherapy course.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of primary tumor and involved lymph node (LN) geometry (centroid, shape, volume) on internal target volume (ITV) throughout treatment for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer using weekly four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eleven patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer were treated using image-guided radiotherapy with acquisition of weekly 10-Phase 4DCTs (n = 51). Initial ITV was based on planning 4DCT. Master-ITV incorporated target geometry across the entire treatment (all 4DCTs). Geographic miss was defined as the % Master-ITV positioned outside of the initial planning ITV after registration is complete. Registration strategies considered were bony (B), primary tumor soft tissue alone (T), and registration based on primary tumor and involved LNs (T_LN). RESULTS: The % geographic miss for the primary tumor, mediastinal, and hilar lymph nodes based on each registration strategy were (1) B: 30%, 30%, 30%; (2) T: 21%, 40%, 36%; and (3) T_LN: 26%, 26%, 27%. Mean geographic expansions to encompass 100% of the primary tumor and involved LNs were 1.2 ± 0.7 cm and 0.8 ± 0.3 cm, respectively, for B and T_LN. Primary and involved LN expansions were 0.7 ± 0.5 cm and 1.1 ± 0.5 cm for T. CONCLUSION: T is best for solitary targets. When treatments include primary tumor and LNs, B and T_LN provide more comprehensive geographic coverage. We have identified high % geographic miss when considering multiple registration strategies. The dosimetric implications are the subject of future study.

Radiographic and metabolic response rates following image-guided stereotactic radiotherapy for lung tumors.

PURPOSE: To evaluate radiographic and metabolic response after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for early lung tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine tumors were treated prospectively with SBRT (dose=48-60 Gy, 4-5 Fx). Thirty-six cases were primary NSCLC (T1N0=67%; T2N0=25%); three cases were solitary metastases. Patients were followed using CT and PET at 6, 16, and 52 weeks post-SBRT, with CT follow-up thereafter. RECIST and EORTC criteria were used to evaluate CT and PET responses. RESULTS: At median follow-up of 9 months (0.4-26), RECIST complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and stable disease (SD) rates were 3%, 43%, 54% at 6 weeks; 15%, 38%, 46% at 16 weeks; 27%, 64%, 9% at 52 weeks. Mean baseline tumor volume was reduced by 46%, 70%, 87%, and 96%, respectively at 6, 16, 52, and 72 weeks. Mean baseline maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) was 8.3 (1.1-20.3) and reduced to 3.4, 3.0, and 3.7 at 6, 16, and 52 weeks after SBRT. EORTC metabolic CR/PR, SD, and progressive disease rates were 67%, 22%, 11% at 6 weeks; 86%, 10%, 3% at 16 weeks; 95%, 5%, 0% at 52 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT yields excellent RECIST and EORTC based response. Metabolic response is rapid however radiographic response occurs even after 1-year post treatment.

Rapid disease progression with delay in treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess rate of disease progression from diagnosis to initiation of treatment for Stage I-IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty patients with NSCLC underwent at least two sets of computed tomography (CT) and 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) scans at various time intervals before treatment. Progression was defined as development of any new lymph node involvement, site of disease, or stage change. RESULTS: Median time interval between first and second CT scans was 13.4 weeks, and between first and second PET scans was 9.0 weeks. Median initial primary maximum tumor dimension (MTD) was 3.5 cm (0.6-8.5 cm) with a median standardized uptake value (SUV) of 13.0 (1.7-38.5). The median MTD increased by a median of 1.0 cm (mean, 1.6 cm) between scans for a median relative MTD increase of 35% (mean, 59%). Nineteen patients (48%) progressed between scans. Rate of any progression was 13%, 31%, and 46% at 4, 8, and 16 weeks, respectively. Upstaging occurred in 3%, 13%, and 21% at these intervals. Distant metastasis became evident in 3%, 13%, and 13% after 4, 8, and 16 weeks, respectively. T and N stage were associated with progression, whereas histology, grade, sex, age, and maximum SUV were not. At 3 years, overall survival for Stage III patients with vs. without progression was 18% vs. 67%, p = 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: With NSCLC, treatment delay can lead to disease progression. Diagnosis, staging, and treatment initiation should be expedited. After 4-8 weeks of delay, complete restaging should be strongly considered.

Dosimetric impact of online correction via cone-beam CT-based image guidance for stereotactic lung radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the dosimetric impact of online cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) guided correction in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty planning and 162 CBCT images from 20 patients undergoing lung SBRT were analyzed. The precorrection CBCT (CBCT after patient setup, no couch correction) was registered to planning CT using soft tissue; couch shift was applied, with a second CBCT for verification (postcorrection CBCT). Targets and normal structures were delineated on CBCTs: gross tumor volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), cord, esophagus, lung, proximal bronchial tree, and aorta. Dose distributions on all organs manifested on each CBCT were compared with those planned on the CT. RESULTS: Without CBCT guided target position correction, target dose reduced with respect to treatment plan. Mean and standard deviation of treatment dose discrepancy from the plan were -3.2% (4.9%), -2.1% (4.4%), -6.1% (10.7%), and -3.5% (7%) for GTV D(99%), GTV D(95%), CTV D(99%), and CTV D(95%), respectively. With CBCT correction, the results were -0.4% (2.6%), 0.1% (1.7%), -0.3% (4.2%), and 0.5% (3%). Mean and standard deviation of the difference in normal organ maximum dose were 2.2% (6.5%) before correction and 2.4% (5.9%) after correction for esophagus; 6.1% (14.1%) and 3.8% (8.1%) for cord; 3.1% (17.5%) and 6.2% (9.8%) for proximal bronchial tree; and 17.7% (19.5%) and 14.1% (17%) for aorta. CONCLUSION: Online CBCT guidance improves the accuracy of target dose delivery for lung SBRT. However, treatment dose to normal tissue can vary regardless of the correction. Normal tissues should be considered during target registration, according to target proximity.