International Journal of Particle Therapy最新文献

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.