J. Isabelle Choi , Camille Hardy-Abeloos , Alicia Lozano , Alexandra Hanlon , Carlos Vargas , John H. Maduro , Julie Bradley , Birgitte Offersen , Bruce Haffty , Mark Pankuch , Richard Amos , Nalee Kim , Shannon M. MacDonald , Youlia Kirova , Robert W. Mutter
{"title":"PTCOG international survey of practice patterns and trends in utilization of proton therapy for breast cancer","authors":"J. Isabelle Choi , Camille Hardy-Abeloos , Alicia Lozano , Alexandra Hanlon , Carlos Vargas , John H. Maduro , Julie Bradley , Birgitte Offersen , Bruce Haffty , Mark Pankuch , Richard Amos , Nalee Kim , Shannon M. MacDonald , Youlia Kirova , Robert W. Mutter","doi":"10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose/objectives</h3><p>The indications, techniques, and extent to which proton beam therapy (PBT) is employed for breast cancer are unknown. We seek to determine PBT utilization for breast cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Materials/methods</h3><p>The Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group (PTCOG) Breast Subcommittee developed an IRB-approved 29-question survey and sent it to breast cancer radiation oncologists at all active PBT centers worldwide in June 2023. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses, and comparisons by continent were performed using Fisher’s exact tests.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 79 surveys distributed, 28 recipients submitted responses (35 % response rate) representing fifteen U.S., 8 European, and 5 Asian centers (continent response rate 50 %, 38 %, and 18 %, respectively). Overall, 93 % reported treating breast cancer patients with PBT; 13 (50 %) have treated ≥100 breast cancer patients at their center since opening. Most (89 %) have pencil beam scanning technology. Nearly half (46 %) use moderate hypofractionation (15–20 fractions) for regional nodal irradiation and 42 % conventional fractionation (25–30 fractions). More European centers prefer hypofractionation (88 %) vs. Asian (50 %) and U.S. (21 %) centers (p = 0.003). Common patient selection methods were practitioner determination/patient preference (n = 16) and comparative plan evaluation (n = 15). U.S. centers reported the most experience with breast PBT, with 71 % having treated ≥100 breast cancer patients vs. 38 % in Europe and none in Asia (p = 0.001). Of respondent centers, 39 % enrolled ≥75 % of breast PBT patients on a research study.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Utilization, patient selection methods, and dose-fractionation approaches for breast cancer PBT vary worldwide. These survey data serve as a benchmark from which successor surveys can provide insight on practice pattern evolution.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10342,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology","volume":"48 ","pages":"Article 100847"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405630824001241/pdfft?md5=34e054a1d1a0907454832f191bca778d&pid=1-s2.0-S2405630824001241-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405630824001241","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose/objectives
The indications, techniques, and extent to which proton beam therapy (PBT) is employed for breast cancer are unknown. We seek to determine PBT utilization for breast cancer.
Materials/methods
The Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group (PTCOG) Breast Subcommittee developed an IRB-approved 29-question survey and sent it to breast cancer radiation oncologists at all active PBT centers worldwide in June 2023. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses, and comparisons by continent were performed using Fisher’s exact tests.
Results
Of 79 surveys distributed, 28 recipients submitted responses (35 % response rate) representing fifteen U.S., 8 European, and 5 Asian centers (continent response rate 50 %, 38 %, and 18 %, respectively). Overall, 93 % reported treating breast cancer patients with PBT; 13 (50 %) have treated ≥100 breast cancer patients at their center since opening. Most (89 %) have pencil beam scanning technology. Nearly half (46 %) use moderate hypofractionation (15–20 fractions) for regional nodal irradiation and 42 % conventional fractionation (25–30 fractions). More European centers prefer hypofractionation (88 %) vs. Asian (50 %) and U.S. (21 %) centers (p = 0.003). Common patient selection methods were practitioner determination/patient preference (n = 16) and comparative plan evaluation (n = 15). U.S. centers reported the most experience with breast PBT, with 71 % having treated ≥100 breast cancer patients vs. 38 % in Europe and none in Asia (p = 0.001). Of respondent centers, 39 % enrolled ≥75 % of breast PBT patients on a research study.
Conclusion
Utilization, patient selection methods, and dose-fractionation approaches for breast cancer PBT vary worldwide. These survey data serve as a benchmark from which successor surveys can provide insight on practice pattern evolution.