Article

Should positive phase III clinical trial data be required before proton beam therapy is more widely adopted? No

Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Radiotherapy and Oncology (Impact Factor: 4.86). 03/2008; 86(2):148-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2007.12.024
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Evaluate the rationale for the proposals that prior to a wider use of proton radiation therapy there must be supporting data from phase III clinical trials. That is, would less dose to normal tissues be an advantage to the patient?
Assess the basis for the assertion that proton dose distributions are superior to those of photons for most situations. Consider the requirements for determining the risks of normal tissue injury, acute and remote, in the examination of the data from a trial. Analyze the probable cost differential between high technology photon and proton therapy. Evaluate the rationale for phase III clinical trials of proton vs photon radiation therapy when the only difference in dose delivered is a difference in distribution of low LET radiation.
The distributions of biological effective dose by protons are superior to those by X-rays for most clinical situations, viz. for a defined dose and dose distribution to the target by protons there is a lower dose to non-target tissues. This superiority is due to these physical properties of protons: (1) protons have a finite range and that range is exclusively dependent on the initial energy and the density distribution along the beam path; (2) the Bragg peak; (3) the proton energy distribution may be designed to provide a spread out Bragg peak that yields a uniform dose across the target volume and virtually zero dose deep to the target. Importantly, proton and photon treatment plans can employ beams in the same number and directions (coplanar, non-co-planar), utilize intensity modulation and employ 4D image guided techniques. Thus, the only difference between protons and photons is the distribution of biologically effective dose and this difference can be readily evaluated and quantified. Additionally, this dose distribution advantage should increase the tolerance of certain chemotherapeutic agents and thus permit higher drug doses. The cost of service (not developmental) proton therapy performed in 3-5 gantry centers operating 14-16 h/day and 6 days/week is likely to be equal to or less than twice that of high technology X-ray therapy.
Proton therapy provides superior distributions of low LET radiation dose relative to that by photon therapy for treatment of a large proportion of tumor/normal tissue situations. Our assessment is that there is no medical rationale for clinical trials of protons as they deliver lower biologically effective doses to non-target tissue than do photons for a specified dose and dose distribution to the target. Based on present knowledge, there will be some gain for patients treated by proton beam techniques. This is so even though quantitation of the clinical gain is less secure than the quantitation of reduction in physical dose. Were proton therapy less expensive than X-ray therapy, there would be no interest in conducting phase III trails. The talent, effort and funds required to conduct phase III clinical trials of protons vs photons would surely be more productive in the advancement of radiation oncology if employed to investigate real problems, e.g. the most effective total dose, dose fractionation, definition of CTV and GTV, means for reduction of PTV and the gains and risks of combined modality therapy.

0 Followers
 · 
109 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this review was to describe cost-effectiveness and cost analysis studies across treatment modalities for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), while placing their results in context of the current clinical practice. We performed a literature search in PubMed for English-language studies addressing economic analyses of treatment modalities for SCCHN published from January 2000 to March 2013. We also performed an additional search for related studies published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom. Identified articles were classified into 3 clinical approaches (organ preservation, radiation therapy modalities, and chemotherapy regimens) and into 2 types of economic studies (cost analysis and cost-effectiveness/cost-utility studies). All cost estimates were normalized to US dollars, year 2013 values. Our search yielded 23 articles: 13 related to organ preservation approaches, 5 to radiation therapy modalities, and 5 to chemotherapy regimens. In general, studies analyzed different questions and modalities, making it difficult to reach a conclusion. Even when restricted to comparisons of modalities within the same clinical approach, studies often yielded conflicting findings. The heterogeneity across economic studies of SCCHN should be carefully understood in light of the modeling assumptions and limitations of each study and placed in context with relevant settings of clinical practices and study perspectives. Furthermore, the scarcity of comparative effectiveness and quality-of-life data poses unique challenges for conducting economic analyses for a resource-intensive disease, such as SCCHN, that requires a multimodal care. Future research is needed to better understand how to compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of different modalities for SCCHN.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 08/2014; 89(5):989–996. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.03.040 · 4.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Compared with photon therapy, proton-beam therapy (PBT) offers compelling advantages in physical dose distribution. Worldwide, gantry-based proton facilities are increasing in number, but no such facilities exist in Canada. To access PBT, Canadian patients must travel abroad for treatment at high cost. In the face of limited access, this report seeks to provide recommendations for the selection of patients most likely to benefit from PBT and suggests an out-of-country referral process. Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1990 and May 2014 that evaluated clinical outcomes after PBT. A draft report developed through a review of evidence was externally reviewed and then approved by the Alberta Health Services Cancer Care Proton Therapy Guidelines steering committee. Results Proton therapy is often used to treat tumours close to radiosensitive tissues and to treat children at risk of developing significant late effects of radiation therapy (RT). In uncontrolled and retrospective studies, local control rates with PBT appear similar to, or in some cases higher than, photon RT. Randomized trials comparing equivalent doses of PBT and photon RT are not available. Summary Referral for PBT is recommended for patients who are being treated with curative intent and with an expectation for long-term survival, and who are able and willing to travel abroad to a proton facility. Commonly accepted indications for referral include chordoma and chondrosarcoma, intraocular melanoma, and solid tumours in children and adolescents who have the greatest risk for long-term sequelae. Current data do not provide sufficient evidence to recommend routine referral of patients with most head-and-neck, breast, lung, gastrointestinal tract, and pelvic cancers, including prostate cancer. It is recommended that all referrals be considered by a multidisciplinary team to select appropriate cases.
    Current Oncology 10/2014; 21(5):251-62. DOI:10.3747/co.21.2207 · 1.64 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We compare the quality of photon IMRT (helical tomotherapy) with classic proton plans for brain, head and neck tumors, in terms of target dose uniformity and conformity along with organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing.Plans were created for twelve target volumes among eight cases. All patients were originally planned and treated using helical tomotherapy. Proton plans were generated using a passively-scattered beam model with a maximum range of 32 g cm(-2) (225 MeV), range modulation in 0.5 g cm(-2) increments and range compensators with 4.8 mm milling tool diameters. All proton plans were limited to two to four beams. Plan quality was compared using uniformity index (UI), conformation number (CN) and a EUD-based plan quality index (fEUD).For 11 of the 12 targets, UI was improved for the proton plan; on average, UI was 1.05 for protons versus 1.08 for tomotherapy. For 7 of the 12 targets, the tomotherapy plan exhibited more favorable CN. For proximal OARs, the improved dose conformity to the target volume from tomotherapy led to a lower maximum dose. For distal OARs, the maximum dose was much lower for proton plans. For 6 of the 8 cases, near-total avoidance for distal OARs provided by protons leads to improved fEUD. However, if distal OARs are excluded in the fEUD calculation, the proton plans exhibit better fEUD in only 3 of the 8 cases.The distal OAR sparing and target dose uniformity are generally better with passive-scatter proton planning than with photon tomotherapy; proton therapy may be preferred if the clinician deems those attributes critical. However, tomotherapy may serve equally as well as protons for cases where superior target dose conformity from tomotherapy leads to plan quality nearly identical to or better than protons and for cases where distal OAR sparing is not concerning.
    Physics in Medicine and Biology 02/2015; 60(6):2167-2177. DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/60/6/2167 · 2.92 Impact Factor