International Journal of Particle Therapy最新文献

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to reduce the severity of radiation dermatitis for breast cancer patients receiving pencil beam scanning proton therapy. The hypothesis was that eliminating proton spots (SpotDelete) in the 0.5 cm skin rind would reduce the potentially higher relative biological effectiveness (RBE) known to occur at the Bragg Peak.

Patients and methods: Our center has been using an in-house developed Python script in RayStation since 2021 to remove spots from the skin rind of breast patients. In this work, we retrospectively reviewed the on-treatment visit data from a cohort of breast patients treated with hypofractionation (16 fractions) before this technique (MinDepth) and after (SpotDelete) to acquire the physician-reported radiation dermatitis scores. We evaluated the delivered treatment plans, calculating the linear energy transfer (LET) and applying 3 variable RBE models, Carabe-Fernandez, Wedenberg, and McNamara. An α/β of 10 was assumed for the skin.

Results: In the MinDepth cohort (n = 28), grade 1, 2, and 3 dermatitis accounted for 57%, 36%, and 7% of the cases, respectively. For SpotDelete (n = 27), the incidence rate of grade 1 and 2 acute radiation dermatitis was 67% and 37%, respectively. There were 0 instances of grade 3 dermatitis observed in the SpotDelete cohort. The onset of radiation dermatitis in the SpotDelete cohort was delayed compared to MinDepth, occurring 1 week later in the course of treatment. There was no significant difference in LET or in any of the variable RBE models when analyzing the 0.5 cm skin rind between the cohorts.

Conclusion: Despite the lack of correlation in LET or RBE, SpotDelete has been shown to reduce the severity and onset of radiation dermatitis. Possibly, more research into the α/β for skin and RBE models based on skin cell lines could provide insight into the efficacy of the SpotDelete technique.

Purpose: Previous studies have shown that external beam radiation therapy is associated with an increased risk of second primary cancer (SPC) among prostate cancer (PCa) patients, but the relative risks associated with newer and advanced radiation modalities such as proton beam therapy (PBT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are unclear. This study aimed to assess the relative probability of SPC among patients treated with these newer modalities compared to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

Patients and methods: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), N0M0 PCa cases diagnosed between 2004 and 2018 were identified. Second primary cancer probabilities were compared among those treated with curative-intent PBT, SBRT, and IMRT. Multivariable logistic regression and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to generate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: In total, 133 898 patients were included, with a median age of 69 years and median follow-up of 6.4 years. As their first course of treatment, 3420 (2.6%) received PBT, 121 211 (90.5%) received IMRT, and 9267 (6.9%) received SBRT. Compared with IMRT, PBT and SBRT were associated with lower SPC risk (aORs and 95% CIs, PBT: 0.49 [0.40-0.60], SBRT: 0.57 (0.51-0.63), P < .001). Inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses corroborated these results.

Conclusion: In this large national cohort, PBT and SBRT performed similarly and were associated with reduced SPC risk compared to IMRT when used as the first course of treatment.

Particle therapy (PT) represents a significant advancement in cancer treatment, precisely targeting tumor cells while sparing surrounding healthy tissues thanks to the unique depth-dose profiles of the charged particles. Furthermore, their linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness enhance their capability to treat radioresistant tumors, including hypoxic ones. Over the years, extensive research has paved the way for PT's clinical application, and current efforts aim to refine its efficacy and precision, minimizing the toxicities. In this regard, radiobiology research is evolving toward integrating biotechnology to advance drug discovery and radiation therapy optimization. This shift from basic radiobiology to understanding the molecular mechanisms of PT aims to expand the therapeutic window through innovative dose delivery regimens and combined therapy approaches. This review, written by over 30 contributors from various countries, provides a comprehensive look at key research areas and new developments in PT radiobiology, emphasizing the innovations and techniques transforming the field, ranging from the radiobiology of new irradiation modalities to multimodal radiation therapy and modeling efforts. We highlight both advancements and knowledge gaps, with the aim of improving the understanding and application of PT in oncology.

Purpose: Radiation-induced lymphopenia is a common immune toxicity that adversely impacts treatment outcomes. We report here our approach to translate a deep-learning (DL) model developed to predict severe lymphopenia risk among esophageal cancer into a strategy for incorporating the immune system as an organ-at-risk (iOAR) to mitigate the risk.

Materials and methods: We conducted "virtual clinical trials" utilizing retrospective data for 10 intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and 10 passively-scattered proton therapy (PSPT) esophageal cancer patients. For each patient, additional treatment plans of the modality other than the original were created employing standard-of-care (SOC) dose constraints. Predicted values of absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) nadir for all plans were estimated using a previously-developed DL model. The model also yielded the relative magnitudes of contributions of iOARs dosimetric factors to ALC nadir, which were used to compute iOARs dose-volume constraints, which were incorporated into optimization criteria to produce "IMRT-enhanced" and "intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT)-enhanced" plans.

Results: Model-predicted ALC nadir for the original IMRT (IMRT-SOC) and PSPT plans agreed well with actual values. IMPT-SOC showed greater immune sparing vs IMRT and PSPT. The average mean body doses were 13.10 Gy vs 7.62 Gy for IMRT-SOC vs IMPT-SOC for patients treated with IMRT-SOC; and 8.08 Gy vs 6.68 Gy for PSPT vs IMPT-SOC for patients treated with PSPT. For IMRT patients, the average predicted ALC nadir of IMRT-SOC, IMRT-enhanced, IMPT-SOC, and IMPT-enhanced was 281, 327, 351, and 392 cells/µL, respectively. For PSPT patients, the average predicted ALC nadir of PSPT, IMPT-SOC, and IMPT-enhanced was 258, 316, and 350 cells/µL, respectively. Enhanced plans achieved higher predicted ALC nadir, with an average improvement of 40.8 cells/µL (20.6%).

Conclusion: The proposed DL model-guided strategy to incorporate the immune system as iOAR in IMRT and IMPT optimization has the potential for radiation-induced lymphopenia mitigation. A prospective clinical trial is planned.

Purpose: Periodic quality assurance CTs (QACTs) are routine in proton beam therapy. In this study, we tested whether the necessity for a QACT could be determined by evaluating the change in beam path length (BPL) on daily cone-beam CT (CBCT).

Patients and methods: In this Institutional Review Board-approved study, we retrospectively analyzed 959 CBCT images from 78 patients with sarcomas treated with proton pencil-beam scanning. Plans on 17 QACTs out of a total of 243 were clinically determined to be replanned for various reasons. Daily CBCTs were retrospectively analyzed by automatic ray-tracing of each beam from the isocenter to the skin surface along the central axis. A script was developed for this purpose. Patterns of change in BPL on CBCT images were compared to those from adaptive planning using weekly QACTs.

Results: Sixteen of the 17 adaptive replans showed BPL changes ≥4 mm for at least 1 of the beams on 3 consecutive CBCT sessions. Similarly, 43 of 63 nonadaptively planned patients had BPL changes <4 mm for all of the beams. A new QACT criterium of a BPL change of any beam ≥4 mm on 3 consecutive CBCT sessions resulted in a sensitivity of 94.1% and a specificity of 68.3%. Had the BPL change been used as the QACT predictor, a total of 37 QACTs would have been performed rather than 243 QACTs in clinical practice.

Conclusion: The use of BPL changes on CBCT images represented a significant reduction (85%) in total QACT burden while maintaining treatment quality and accuracy. QACT can be performed only when it is needed, but not in a periodic manner. The benefits of reducing QACT frequency include reducing imaging dose and optimizing patient time and staff resources.

Purpose: Radiotherapy delivery in the definitive management of lower gastrointestinal (LGI) tract malignancies is associated with substantial risk of acute and late gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary, dermatologic, and hematologic toxicities. Advanced radiation therapy techniques such as proton beam therapy (PBT) offer optimal dosimetric sparing of critical organs at risk, achieving a more favorable therapeutic ratio compared with photon therapy.

Materials and methods: The international Particle Therapy Cooperative Group GI Subcommittee conducted a systematic literature review, from which consensus recommendations were developed on the application of PBT for LGI malignancies.

Results: Eleven recommendations on clinical indications for which PBT should be considered are presented with supporting literature, and each recommendation was assessed for level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Detailed technical guidelines pertaining to simulation, treatment planning and delivery, and image guidance are also provided.

Conclusion: PBT may be of significant value in select patients with LGI malignancies. Additional clinical data are needed to further elucidate the potential benefits of PBT for patients with anal cancer and rectal cancer.

Purpose: To report the current practice pattern of the proton stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate treatments.

Materials and methods: A survey was designed to inquire about the practice of proton SBRT treatment for prostate cancer. The survey was distributed to all 30 proton therapy centers in the United States that participate in the National Clinical Trial Network in February, 2023. The survey focused on usage, patient selection criteria, prescriptions, target contours, dose constraints, treatment plan optimization and evaluation methods, patient-specific QA, and image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) methods.

Results: We received responses from 25 centers (83% participation). Only 8 respondent proton centers (32%) reported performing SBRT of the prostate. The remaining 17 centers cited 3 primary reasons for not offering this treatment: no clinical need, lack of volumetric imaging, and/or lack of clinical evidence. Only 1 center cited the reduction in overall reimbursement as a concern for not offering prostate SBRT. Several common practices among the 8 centers offering SBRT for the prostate were noted, such as using Hydrogel spacers, fiducial markers, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for target delineation. Most proton centers (87.5%) utilized pencil beam scanning (PBS) delivery and completed Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) phantom credentialing. Treatment planning typically used parallel opposed lateral beams, and consistent parameters for setup and range uncertainties were used for plan optimization and robustness evaluation. Measurements-based patient-specific QA, beam delivery every other day, fiducial contours for IGRT, and total doses of 35 to 40 GyRBE were consistent across all centers. However, there was no consensus on the risk levels for patient selection.

Conclusion: Prostate SBRT is used in about 1/3 of proton centers in the US. There was a significant consistency in practices among proton centers treating with proton SBRT. It is possible that the adoption of proton SBRT may become more common if proton SBRT is more commonly offered in clinical trials.

Purpose: Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignancy accounting for 1% of all head and neck cancers. Treatment for ACC has its challenges and risks, yet few outcomes studies exist. We present long-term outcomes of patients with ACC of the head and neck treated with proton therapy (PT).

Materials and methods: Under an institutional review board-approved, single-institutional prospective outcomes registry, we reviewed the records of 56 patients with de novo, nonmetastatic ACC of the head and neck treated with PT with definitive (n = 9) or adjuvant PT (n = 47) from June 2007 to December 2021. The median dose to the primary site was 72.6 gray relative biological equivalent (range, 64-74.4) delivered as either once (n = 19) or twice (n = 37) daily treatments. Thirty patients received concurrent chemotherapy. Thirty-one patients received nodal radiation, 30 electively and 1 for nodal involvement.

Results: With a median follow-up of 6.2 years (range, 0.9-14.7), the 5-year local-regional control (LRC), disease-free survival, cause-specific survival, and overall survival rates were 88%, 85%, 89%, and 89%, respectively. Intracranial extension (P = .003) and gross residual tumor (P = .0388) were factors associated with LRC rates. While the LRC rate for those with a gross total resection was 96%, those with subtotal resection or biopsy alone were 81% and 76%, respectively. The 5-year cumulative incidence of clinically significant grade ≥3 toxicity was 15%, and the crude incidence at the most recent follow-up was 23% (n = 13).

Conclusion: This is the largest sample size with the longest median follow-up to date of patients with ACC treated with PT. PT can provide excellent disease control for ACC of the head and neck with acceptable toxicity. T4 disease, intracranial involvement, and gross residual disease at the time of PT following either biopsy or subtotal resection were significant prognostic features for worse outcomes.

Purpose: Obtaining prior authorization (PA) before treatment is becoming increasingly burdensome in oncology, especially in radiation oncology. Here, we describe the impact of a strategic novel operational PA redesign to shorten authorization time and to improve patient access to cancer care at a large United States academic proton therapy center. We ask whether such a redesign may be replicable and adoptable across oncology centers.

Materials and methods: Our PA redesign strategy was based on a 3-tiered approach. Specifically, we (1) held payors accountable to legally backed timelines, (2) leveraged expertise on insurance policies and practices, and (3) updated the submission, appeal writing, and planning procedures for PA. Metrics were compared at the following 3 time points: 6 months before, at phase-in, and at 6 months after intervention.

Results: In analyzing the impact of improving PA access to care, the percentage of approvals for commercial proton beam therapy improved by an absolute 30.6% postintervention (P < .001). The proportion of commercially insured patients treated with proton beam therapy also increased by 6.2%, and the number of new starts rose by 11.7 patients/mo. Overall patient census increased by 13 patients/d. Median authorization time was 1 week, and 90% of surveyed providers reported reduced PA burden and improved patient care.

Conclusion: This is the first validated, comprehensive operational strategy to improve access to cancer therapy while reducing the burden of PA. This novel approach may be helpful for addressing barriers to PA in medical and surgical oncology because the redesign is predicated on laws that regulate PA across disciplines.