Patients' needs in proton therapy: A survey among ten European facilities.

Aims: The number of Proton Therapy (PT) facilities is still limited worldwide, and the access to treatment could be characterized by patients' logistic and economic challenges. Aim of the present survey is to assess the support provided to patients undergoing PT across Europe. Methods: Through a personnel contact, an online questionnaire (62 multiple-choice and open-ended questions) via Microsoft Forms was administered to 10 European PT centers. The questionnaire consisted of 62 questions divided into 6 sections: i) personal data; ii) general information on clinical activity; iii) fractionation, concurrent systemic treatments and technical aspects of PT facility; iv) indication to PT and reimbursement policies; v) economic and/ or logistic support to patients vi) participants agreement on statements related to the possible limitation of access to PT. A qualitative analysis was performed and reported. Results: From March to May 2022 all ten involved centers filled the survey. Nine centers treat from 100 to 500 patients per year. Paediatric patients accounted for 10-30%, 30-50% and 50-70% of the entire cohort for 7, 2 and 1 center, respectively. The most frequent tumours treated in adult population were brain tumours, sarcomas and head and neck carcinomas; in all centers, the mean duration of PT is longer than 3 weeks. In 80% of cases, the treatment reimbursement for PT is supplied by the respective country's Health National System (HNS). HNS also provides economic support to patients in 70% of centers, while logistic and meal support is provided in 20% and 40% of centers, respectively. PT facilities offer economic and/or logistic support in 90% of the cases. Logistic support for parents of pediatric patients is provided by HNS only in one-third of centers. Overall, 70% of respondents agree that geographic challenges could limit a patient's access to proton facilities and 60% believe that additional support should be given to patients referred for PT care. Conclusions: Relevant differences exist among European countries in supporting patients referred to PT in their logistic and economic challenges. Further efforts should be made by HNSs and PT facilities to reduce the risk of inequities in access to cancer care with protons.

Oligo metastatic renal cell carcinoma: stereotactic body radiation therapy, if, when and how?

Background and purpose Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has traditionally been considered radioresistant with a limited role for conventional fractionation as a local approach. Nevertheless, since the appearance of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), radiotherapy (RT) has been increasingly employed in the management of metastatic RCC (mRCC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of SBRT for synchronous and metachronous oligo metastatic RCC patients in terms of local control, delay of systemic treatment, overall survival and toxicity. Patients and methods A Monocentric single institution retrospective data collection was performed. Inclusion criteria were: (1) oligo-recurrent or oligo-progressive disease (less than 5 metastases) in mRCC patients after radical/partial nephrectomy or during systemic therapy, (2) metastasectomy or other metastasis-directed, rather than SBRT not feasible, (3) any contraindication to receive systemic therapy (such as comorbidities), (4) all the histologies were included, (5) available signed informed consent form for treatment. Tumor response and toxicity were evaluated using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03, respectively. Progression-free survival in-field and out-field (in-field and out-field PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated via the Kaplan–Meier method. The drug treatment-free interval was calculated from the start of SBRT to the beginning of any systemic therapy. Results From 2010 to December 2018, 61 patients with extracranial and intracranial metastatic RCC underwent SBRT on 83 lesions. Intracranial and extracranial lesions were included. Forty-five (74%) patients were treated for a solitary metastatic lesion. Median RT dose was 25 Gy (range 10–52) in 5–10 fractions. With a median follow-up of 2.3 years (range 0–7.15), 1-year in-field PFS was 70%, 2-year in-field PFS was 55% (AU)

Oligo metastatic renal cell carcinoma: stereotactic body radiation therapy, if, when and how?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has traditionally been considered radioresistant with a limited role for conventional fractionation as a local approach. Nevertheless, since the appearance of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), radiotherapy (RT) has been increasingly employed in the management of metastatic RCC (mRCC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of SBRT for synchronous and metachronous oligo metastatic RCC patients in terms of local control, delay of systemic treatment, overall survival and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Monocentric single institution retrospective data collection was performed. Inclusion criteria were: (1) oligo-recurrent or oligo-progressive disease (less than 5 metastases) in mRCC patients after radical/partial nephrectomy or during systemic therapy, (2) metastasectomy or other metastasis-directed, rather than SBRT not feasible, (3) any contraindication to receive systemic therapy (such as comorbidities), (4) all the histologies were included, (5) available signed informed consent form for treatment. Tumor response and toxicity were evaluated using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03, respectively. Progression-free survival in-field and out-field (in-field and out-field PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated via the Kaplan-Meier method. The drug treatment-free interval was calculated from the start of SBRT to the beginning of any systemic therapy. RESULTS: From 2010 to December 2018, 61 patients with extracranial and intracranial metastatic RCC underwent SBRT on 83 lesions. Intracranial and extracranial lesions were included. Forty-five (74%) patients were treated for a solitary metastatic lesion. Median RT dose was 25 Gy (range 10-52) in 5-10 fractions. With a median follow-up of 2.3 years (range 0-7.15), 1-year in-field PFS was 70%, 2-year in-field PFS was 55%. One year out-field PFS was 39% and 1-year OS was 78%. Concomitant systemic therapy was employed for only 11 (18%) patients, for the others 50 (82%) the drug treatment-free rate was 70% and 50% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. No > G1 acute and late toxicities were reported. CONCLUSION: The pattern of failure was pre-dominantly out-of-field, even if the population was negatively selected and the used RT dose could be considered palliative. Therefore, SBRT appears to be a well-tolerated, feasible and safe approach in oligo metastatic RCC patients with an excellent in-field PFS. SBRT might play a role in the management of selected RCC patients allowing for a delay systemic therapy begin (one out of two patients were free from new systemic therapy at 2 years after SBRT). Further research on SBRT dose escalation is warranted.