A review and bibliometric analysis of global research on proton radiotherapy.

Proton beam therapy (PBT) has great advantages as tumor radiotherapy and is progressively becoming a more prevalent choice for individuals undergoing radiation therapy. The objective of this review is to pinpoint collaborative efforts among countries and institutions, while also exploring the hot topics and future outlook in the field of PBT. Data from publications were downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection. CiteSpace and Excel 2016 were used to conduct the bibliometric and knowledge map analysis. A total of 6516 publications were identified, with the total number of articles steadily increasing and the United States being the most productive country. Harvard University took the lead in contributing the highest number of publications. Paganetti Harald published the most articles and had the most cocitations. PHYS MED BIOL published the greatest number of PBT-related articles, while INT J RADIAT ONCOL received the most citations. Paganetti Harald, 2012, PHYS MED BIOL can be classified as classic literature due to its high citation rate. We believe that research on technology development, dose calculation and relative biological effectiveness were the knowledge bases in this field. Future research hotspots may include clinical trials, flash radiotherapy, and immunotherapy.

Clinical and technical considerations for mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma protontherapy based on a single-center early experience.

PURPOSE: Protontherapy for mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma reduces cardiac, lung and breast exposure, which may limit radiation-induced adverse events. While this technique is already widely implemented in the United-States, clinical experience is still limited in France. This study analyses the practice of mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma protontherapy at the Institut Curie to implement this technique at a larger scale. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from all mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma patients from the hematology department of the Institut Curie who were subsequently evaluated at the Protontherapy Center of Orsay (CPO) of Institut Curie for adjuvant protontherapy were retrieved. We analyzed why these patients were ultimately treated with protontherapy or not. RESULTS: Between January 2018 and January 2021, twenty mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma patients from the hematology department of the Institut Curie have been screened for protontherapy at the CPO. Four of them (20%) were ultimately treated with proton beams. Treatment was well tolerated without grade 3-4 adverse events. With a median follow-up of two years, none of these patients relapsed. The others sixteen patients were not treated with protontherapy due to multiple reasons including: lack of treatment room disponibility, accessibility difficulties, psychiatric disorder, and anatomic or dosimetric considerations. CONCLUSION: Despite notable dosimetric superiority over photon radiotherapy and excellent clinical tolerance, lack of availability of protontherapy facilities limit implementation of mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma protontherapy. Additionally, strict selection criteria must be defined.

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

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

Clinical practice of breast cancer protontherapy: A single-centre experience from selection to treatment.

PURPOSE: Breast protontherapy efficiently limits cardiac, lung and contralateral breast exposure, which may clinically translate into better late tolerance profile compared with classic photon techniques. While breast protontherapy is already implemented in the United States and in some European countries, clinical experience of breast cancer protontherapy is currently limited in France. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical practice of breast cancer protontherapy at the Institut Curie in order to implement this technique at a larger scale. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from all breast cancer patients that have been addressed to the protontherapy centre of Orsay (CPO, Institut Curie) for adjuvant breast protontherapy were retrieved. We analysed why these patients were ultimately treated with protontherapy or not. RESULTS: Between November 2019 and November 2020, eleven breast cancer patients have been evaluated for adjuvant protontherapy at the CPO. Two of them were ultimately treated with proton beams; adjuvant breast protontherapy therapy was well tolerated. The nine other patients were not treated with protontherapy due to lack of availability of protontherapy treatment rooms in acceptable time limits, at the time of patient evaluation. CONCLUSION: Despite dosimetric advantages and excellent clinical tolerance, lack of availability of protontherapy machines currently limits wider implementation of breast protontherapy.

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

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

Influence of Geography on Prostate Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: Several definitive treatment options are available for prostate cancer, but geographic access to those options is not uniform. We created maps illustrating provider practice patterns relation to patients and assessed the influence of distance to treatment receipt. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The patient cohort was created by searching the National Medicare Database for patients diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer from 2011 to 2014. The provider cohort was created by querying the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile to identify physicians who had treated patients with prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), or proton therapy. Maps detailing the location of providers were created for each modality. Multivariate multinomial logistic regressions were used to assess the association between patient-provider distance and probability of treatment. RESULTS: Cohorts consisted of 89,902 patients treated by 5518 physicians. Substantial numbers of providers practicing established modalities (IMRT, prostatectomy, and brachytherapy) were noted in major urban centers, whereas provider numbers were reduced in rural areas, most notably for brachytherapy. Ninety percent of prostate cancer patients lived within 35.1, 28.9, and 55.6 miles of a practitioner of prostatectomy, IMRT, and brachytherapy, respectively. Practitioners of emerging modalities (SBRT and proton therapy) were predominantly concentrated in urban locations, with 90% of patients living within 128 miles (SBRT) and 374.5 miles (proton). Greater distance was associated with decreased probability of treatment (IMRT -3.8% per 10 miles; prostatectomy -2.1%; brachytherapy -2%; proton therapy -1.6%; and SBRT -1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Geographic disparities were noted for analyzed treatment modalities, and these disparities influenced delivery.

Carbon ion radiation therapy for sinonasal malignancies: Promising results from 2282 cases from the real world.

The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of carbon ion radiation therapy (CIRT), proton radiation therapy (PRT), and photon-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of sinonasal malignancies. We identified studies through systematic review and divided them into three cohorts (CIRT group/PRT group/IMRT group). Primary outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and local control (LC). We pooled the outcomes with meta-analysis and compared the survival difference among groups using Chi2 (χ2 ) test. A representative sample of 2282 patients with sinonasal malignancies (911 in the CIRT group, 599 in the PRT group, and 772 in the IMRT group) from 44 observation studies (7 CIRT, 16 PRT, and 21 IMRT) was included. The pooled 3-year OS, LC, distant metastasis-free survival, and progression-free survival rates were 67.0%, 72.8%, 69.4%, and 52.8%, respectively. Through cross-group analysis, the OS was significantly higher after CIRT (75.1%, 95% CI: 67.1%-83.2%) than PRT (66.2%, 95% CI: 57.7%-74.6%; χ2  = 13.374, P < .0001) or IMRT (63.8%, 95% CI: 55.3%-72.3%; χ2  = 23.814, P < .0001). LC was significantly higher after CIRT (80.2%, 95% CI: 73.9%-86.5%) than PRT (72.9%, 95% CI: 63.7%-82.0%; χ2  = 8.955, P = .003) or IMRT (67.8%, 95% CI: 59.4%-76.2%; χ2  = 30.955, P < .0001). However, no significant difference between PRT and IMRT for OS and LC was observed. CIRT appeared to provide better OS and LC for patients with malignancies of nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. A prospective randomized clinical trial is needed to confirm the superiority of CIRT in the treatment of sinonasal tumors.

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

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

Radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer: patterns of care in Sweden 1998-2016.

Introduction: Radiotherapy is an established treatment option for prostate cancer (PCa), both as primary treatment and secondary treatment after radical prostatectomy (RP). Since 1998, detailed data on radiotherapy delivered to Swedish men with PCa (e.g. treatment modalities, absorbed doses, fractionation) have been collated within PCa data Base Sweden (PCBaSe). This study reports patterns of radical radiotherapy for PCa in Sweden over the past two decades.Materials and methods: All men with non-metastatic PCa (1998-2016) who received external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or high or low dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT/LDR-BT) were identified in PCBaSe. Analyses included: trends in radiation techniques, fractionation patterns and total doses over time; PCa-specific survival comparing treatment in 2007-2017 with 1998-2006; and regional variation in type of primary radiotherapy.Results: About 20,876 men underwent primary radiotherapy. The main treatment modalities include conventionally fractionated (2.0 Gy/fraction) EBRT (51%), EBRT with HDR-BT boost (27%) and hypofractionated (>2.4 Gy/fraction) EBRT (11%). EBRT with photon or proton boost and HDR-BT and LDR-BT monotherapies were each used minimally. Use of dose-escalated EBRT (>74 Gy) and moderate hypofractionation increased over time, while use of HDR-BT declined. Considerable regional variation in treatment modalities was apparent. Risk of PCa death following primary radiotherapy had declined for intermediate-risk (HR: 0.60; 95%CI 0.47-0.87) and high-risk PCa (HR: 0.72; 95%CI 0.61-0.86).Discussion: Increased use of dose escalation and hypofractionated EBRT has occurred in Sweden over the past two decades, reflecting current evidence and practice guidelines. Disease-specific outcomes have also improved. Data collected in PCBaSe provide an excellent resource for further research into RT use in PCa management.

Therapeutic results of proton beam therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for cT1 esophageal cancer and salvage endoscopic therapy for local recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Proton beam therapy (PBT) with concurrent chemotherapy is promising for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). The aim of study was to evaluate the outcome of concurrent chemo-proton therapy (CCPT), i.e., PBT with concurrent chemotherapy for cT1 ESCC and the salvage endoscopic therapy for local recurrence. METHODS: Patients with clinical T1 ESCC who underwent CCPT (60 GyE) between April 2013 and April 2017 at the National Cancer Center Hospital East were investigated. The efficacy of CCPT at the primary site was evaluated via endoscopy; primary complete response (CR) was defined as disappearance of the tumor lesion/ulcer and absence of cancer cells on biopsy. Endoscopic evaluation was performed with the same protocol of conventional chemoradiotherapy. Local recurrence after CCPT was treated with endoscopic resection for cT1a and with esophagectomy or photodynamic therapy for cT1b+. RESULTS: Of the 44 patients (median age, 70 years) that underwent CCPT, 43 patients (98%) achieved primary CR. Among the 44 patients, the 3-year overall survival rate was 95.2%. Five patients (11%) developed local recurrence without regional lymph node or distant metastasis and received endoscopic resection or photodynamic therapy. All five patients were alive with no recurrence after a median 23 months. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that CCPT is an effective treatment for cT1 ESCC and careful endoscopic follow-up allows preferable local control with salvage endoscopic treatment.

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

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

Proton RBE dependence on dose in the setting of hypofractionation.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy is attractive concerning patient burden and therapy costs, but many aspects play a role when it comes to assess its safety. While exploited for conventional photon therapy and carbon ion therapy, hypofractionation with protons is only rarely applied. One reason for this is uncertainty in the described dose, mainly due to the relative biological effectiveness (RBE), which is small for protons, but not negligible. RBE is generally dose-dependent, and for higher doses as used in hypofractionation, a thorough RBE evaluation is needed. This review article focuses on the RBE variability in protons and associated issues or implications for hypofractionation.

An open invitation to join the Pediatric Proton/Photon Consortium Registry to standardize data collection in pediatric radiation oncology.

OBJECTIVE: The Pediatric Proton/Photon Consortium Registry (PPCR) is a comprehensive data registry composed of pediatric patients treated with radiation. It was established to expedite outcomes-based research. The attributes which allow the PPCR to be a successful collaboration are reviewed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Current eligibility criteria are radiotherapy patients < 22 years treated at one of the 15 US participating institutions. Detailed health and treatment data are collected about the disease presentation and treatment exposures, and annually thereafter, in REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture). DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) imaging and radiation plans are collected through MIM/MIMcloud. An optional patient-reported quality-of-life (PedsQL) study is administered at 10 sites. RESULTS: Accrual started October 2012 with 2,775 participants enrolled as of 25 July 2019. Most patients, 62.0%, were treated for central nervous system (CNS) tumors, the most common of which are medulloblastoma (n = 349), ependymoma (n = 309), and glial/astrocytoma tumors (n = 279). The most common non-CNS diagnoses are rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 284), Ewing's sarcoma (n = 153), and neuroblastoma (n = 130). While the majority of participants are US residents, 18.7% come from 36 other countries. Over 685 patients participate in the PedsQL study. CONCLUSIONS: The PPCR is a valuable research platform capable of answering countless research questions that will ultimately improve patient care. Centers outside of the USA are invited to participate directly or may engage with the PPCR to align data collection strategies to facilitate large-scale international research. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: For investigators looking to carry out research in a large pediatric oncology cohort or interested in registry work, this paper provides an updated overview of the PPCR.

Proton beam therapy: perspectives on the National Health Service England clinical service and research programme.

The UK has an important role in the evaluation of proton beam therapy (PBT) and takes its place on the world stage with the opening of the first National Health Service (NHS) PBT centre in Manchester in 2018, and the second in London coming in 2020. Systematic evaluation of the role of PBT is a key objective. By September 2019, 108 patients had started treatment, 60 paediatric, 19 teenagers and young adults and 29 adults. Obtaining robust outcome data is vital, if we are to understand the strengths and weaknesses of current treatment approaches. This is important in demonstrating when PBT will provide an advantage and when it will not, and in quantifying the magnitude of benefit.The UK also has an important part to play in translational PBT research, and building a research capability has always been the vision. We are perfectly placed to perform translational pre-clinical biological and physical experiments in the dedicated research room in Manchester. The nature of DNA damage from proton irradiation is considerably different from X-rays and this needs to be more fully explored. A better understanding is needed of the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons, especially at the end of the Bragg peak, and of the effects on tumour and normal tissue of PBT combined with conventional chemotherapy, targeted drugs and immunomodulatory agents. These experiments can be enhanced by deterministic mathematical models of the molecular and cellular processes of DNA damage response. The fashion of ultra-high dose rate FLASH irradiation also needs to be explored.

Latest developments in in-vivo imaging for proton therapy.

Owing to the favorable physical and biological properties of swift ions in matter, their application to radiation therapy for highly selective cancer treatment is rapidly spreading worldwide. To date, over 90 ion therapy facilities are operational, predominantly with proton beams, and about the same amount is under construction or planning.Over the last decades, considerable developments have been achieved in accelerator technology, beam delivery and medical physics to enhance conformation of the dose delivery to complex shaped tumor volumes, with excellent sparing of surrounding normal tissue and critical organs. Nevertheless, full clinical exploitation of the ion beam advantages is still challenged, especially by uncertainties in the knowledge of the beam range in the actual patient anatomy during the fractionated course of treatment, thus calling for continued multidisciplinary research in this rapidly emerging field.This contribution will review latest developments aiming to image the patient with the same beam quality as for therapy prior to treatment, and to visualize in-vivo the treatment delivery by exploiting irradiation-induced physical emissions, with different level of maturity from proof-of-concept studies in phantoms and first in-silico studies up to clinical testing and initial clinical evaluation.

Retrospective analysis of reduced energy switching and room switching times on throughput efficiency of a multi-room proton therapy center.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify how a control software upgrade changed beam delivery times and impacted efficiency and capacity of a multiroom proton therapy center. METHODS: A four-room center treating approximately 90 patients/day, treating for approximately 7 years with optimized operations, underwent a software upgrade which reduced room and energy switching times from approximately 30 to 20 s and approximately 4 s to ~0.5 s, respectively. The center uses radio-frequency identification data to track patient treatments and has software which links this to beam delivery data extracted from the treatment log server. Two 4-month periods, with comparable patient volume, representing periods before and after the software change, were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 16,168 and 17,102 fields were analyzed. For bilateral head and neck and prostate patients, the beam waiting time was reduced by nearly a factor of 3 and the beam delivery times were reduced by nearly a factor of 2.5. Room switching times were reduced more modestly. Gantry capacity has increased from approximately 30 patients to 40-45 patients in a 16-h daily operation. CONCLUSIONS: Many proton centers are striving for increased efficiencies. We demonstrated that reductions in energy and room switching time can significantly increase center capacity. Greater potential for further gains would come from improvements in setup and imaging efficiency. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper provides detailed measured data on the effect on treatment times resulting from reducing energy and room switching times under controlled conditions. It helps validate the models of previous investigations to establish treatment capacity of a proton therapy center.

Patient-Reported Sexual Survivorship Following High-Dose Image-Guided Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To help guide individualized treatment, we sought to identify baseline predictive factors that impact long-term erectile function following high-dose image-guided radiotherapy (HD-IGRT). METHODS: Potent men with localized prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy alone were enrolled in an institutional review board-approved prospective cohort study. Men received HD-IGRT as primary treatment of prostate cancer. Patient-reported inventories were used to assess erectile function at baseline, 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years after treatment. Long-term potency rates were compared to validated models, and baseline factors were used to create a novel, internally validated nomogram for predicting long-term function. RESULTS: 1,159 men were treated with HD-IGRT. Among 676 men who were potent at baseline and did not receive hormone therapy, the potency rates at 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years were 81%, 68%, and 61%. Recursive partitioning categorized patients into 3 groups based on two factors: baseline response to EPIC Q57 (ability to have an erection) and pre-existing heart disease. At 5 years, the most favorable group reported "very good" on Q57 and had an 80% potency rate (n = 137; p = 0.83); the intermediate group reported "good" on Q57 and had no baseline cardiac disease with a 62% potency rate (n = 145; p = 0.86); and the remaining poor risk group had a 37% potency rate (n = 117; p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported pretreatment sexual function and comorbidities enables stratification and prediction of erectile function. EPIC subset questions with baseline comorbidities may potentially serve as a quick and practical clinical tool for predicting sexual survivorship.

Increased distance from a treating proton center is associated with diminished ability to follow patients enrolled on a multicenter radiation oncology registry.

PURPOSE: Consistent follow-up and data collection are necessary to identify long-term benefits/detriments of proton radiotherapy. Obtaining comprehensive clinical follow-up can be difficult and time-intensive for proton centers. Here we evaluate what factors affect maximum follow-up time among MGH Pediatric Proton Consortium Registry (PPCR) participants. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Enrollment in the PPCR was offered to any patient <22 years receiving protons. Patients were excluded from analysis if they were taken off study due to death or withdrawal. Distance from MGH was calculated by the great-circle formula. We utilized both univariate and multivariate analyses to determine risk factors associated with follow-up time. RESULTS: 333 PPCR patients enrolled between 10/2012 and 03/2017 were included. Median follow-up was 2.4 years (<1-5.5), and median distance away from the proton center was 256.4 km (<1.6-16,949.6). Distance from MGH significantly predicted follow-up time: patients living outside the Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area, >121 km from the proton center, had average follow-up that was 0.53 years less compared to those living within 121 km (p = 0.0002). Loss in average follow-up was also associated with Medicaid insurance, treatment delay due to insurance, and non-White race. Those co-enrolled on a proton trial or seen at a facility had significantly increased follow-up by almost one year (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Patients living further from treating proton center have shorter follow-up durations. Increased distance from treating centers may adversely affect clinical outcomes research. Enhanced sharing of medical information among care providers and improved collection methods are needed to effectively evaluate the benefits of proton therapy.

Downstream Effect of a Proton Treatment Center on an Academic Medical Center.

PURPOSE: To quantify the effects of opening a proton center (PC) on an academic medical center (AMC)/radiation oncology department. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation treatment volume and relative value units from fiscal year 2015 (FY15) to FY17 were retrospectively analyzed at the AMC and 2 community-based centers. To quantify new patient referrals to the AMC, we reviewed the electronic medical record for all patients seen at the PC since consults were initiated in November 2015 (n = 1173). Patients were excluded if the date of entry into the AMC electronic medical record predated their PC consultation. Hospital resource use and professional and technical charges were obtained for these patients. Academic growth, philanthropy, and resident education were evaluated based on grant submissions, clinical trial enrollment, philanthropy, and pediatric case exposure, respectively, from PC opening through FY17. RESULTS: From FY15 to FY17, radiation fractions at the AMC and the 2 community sites decreased by 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12%-16%, P < .001) and increased by 19% (95% CI, 16%-23%, P < .001) and 2% (95% CI, -1.1 to 4.3%, P = NS), respectively; the number of new starts decreased by 3% (95% CI, -13% to 7%, P = NS) and 2% (95% CI, -20% to 16%, P = NS) and increased by 13% (95% CI -2% to 27%, P = NS), respectively. At the AMC, technical and professional relative value units decreased by 5% and 14%, respectively. The PC made 561 external referrals to the AMC, which resulted in $2.38 million technical and $2.13 million professional charges at the AMC. Fifteen grant submissions ($12.83 million) resulted in 6 awards ($3.26 million). Twenty-two clinical trials involving proton therapy were opened, on which a total of 5% (n = 54) of patients enrolled during calendar years 2017 and 2018. The PC was involved in gift donations of $1.6 million. There was a nonsignificant 37% increase in number of pediatric cases. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a slight decline in AMC photon patient volumes and relative value units, a positive downstream effect was associated with the addition of a PC, which benefited the AMC.