Proton beam and prostate cancer: An evolving debate.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zietman A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3863190 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Proton beam and prostate cancer: An evolving debate.
Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology 20130703 6
This paper evaluates the reasons behind the rise in the use of proton beam for prostate cancer, the economics drivers behind it, and the evidence that exists to support it. It concludes that clinical outcome data underlying the notion that this is a superior treatment remains sparse and discusses what is needed to fill in the gaps. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Proton therapy is a promising, but costly, treatment for prostate cancer. Theoretical physical advantages exist; yet to date, it has been shown only to be comparably safe and effective when compared with the alternatives and not necessarily superior. If clinically meaningful benefits do exist for patients, more rigorous study will be needed to detect them and society will require this to justify the investment of time and money. New technical advances in proton beam delivery coupled with shortened overall treatment times and declining device costs have the potential to make this a more cost-effective therapy in the years ahead.
| S-EPMC3619274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Proton beam therapy for prostate cancer has become a source of controversy in the urologic community, and the rapid dissemination and marketing of this technology has led to many patients inquiring about this therapy. Yet the complexity of the technology, the cost, and the conflicting messages in the literature have left many urologists ill equipped to counsel their patients regarding this option. This article reviews the basic science of the proton beam, examines the reasons for both the hype and the controversy surrounding this therapy, and, most importantly, examines the literature so that every urologist is able to comfortably discuss this option with inquiring patients.
| S-EPMC4080851 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are few comparative outcomes data regarding the therapeutic delivery of proton beam therapy (PBT) versus the more widely used photon-based external-beam radiation (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT). We evaluated the impact of PBT on overall survival (OS) compared to EBRT or BT on patients with localized prostate cancer.Patients and methodsThe National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for 2004-2015. Men with clinical stage T1-3, N0, M0 prostate cancer treated with radiation, without surgery or chemotherapy, were included. OS, the primary clinical outcome, was fit by Cox proportional hazard model. Propensity score matching was implemented for covariate balance.ResultsThere were 276,880 eligible patients with a median follow-up of 80.9 months. A total of 4900 (1.8%) received PBT, while 158,111 (57.1%) received EBRT and 113,869 (41.1%) BT. Compared to EBRT and BT, PBT patients were younger and were less likely to be in the high-risk group. On multivariable analysis, compared to PBT, men had worse OS after EBRT (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51-1.96) or BT (adjusted HR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.21-1.58). After propensity score matching, the OS benefit of PBT remained significant compared to EBRT (HR = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.04) but not BT (adjusted HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.93-1.48). The improvement in OS with PBT was most prominent in men ≤ 65 years old with low-risk disease compared to other subgroups (interaction P < .001).ConclusionIn this national data set, PBT was associated with a significant OS benefit compared to EBRT, and with outcomes similar to BT. These results remain to be validated by ongoing prospective trials.
| S-EPMC7914293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeProton beam radiotherapy (PBT) has been used for the definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer with low rates of high-grade toxicity and excellent patient-reported quality-of-life metrics. Technological advances such as pencil beam scanning (PBS), Monte Carlo dose calculations, and polyethylene glycol gel rectal spacers have optimized prostate proton therapy. Here, we report the early clinical outcomes of patients treated for localized prostate cancer using modern PBS-PBT with hydrogel rectal spacing and fiducial tracking without the use of endorectal balloons.Materials and methodsThis is a single institutional review of consecutive patients treated with histologically confirmed localized prostate cancer. Prior to treatment, all patients underwent placement of fiducials into the prostate and insertion of a hydrogel rectal spacer. Patients were typically given a prescription dose of 7920 cGy at 180 cGy per fraction using a Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm. Acute and late toxicity were evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5. Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix definition.ResultsFrom July 2018 to April 2020, 33 patients were treated (median age, 75 years). No severe acute toxicities were observed. The most common acute toxicity was urinary frequency. With a median follow-up of 18 months, there were no high-grade genitourinary late toxicities; however, one grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity was observed. Late erectile dysfunction was common. One treatment failure was observed at 21 months in a patient treated for high-risk prostate cancer.ConclusionEarly clinical outcomes of patients treated with PBS-PBT using Monte Carlo-based planning, fiducial placement, and rectal spacers sans endorectal balloons demonstrate minimal treatment-related toxicity with good oncologic outcomes. Rectal spacer stabilization without the use of endorectal balloons is feasible for the use of PBS-PBT.
| S-EPMC9238133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo report prostate cancer outcomes, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL) in men treated with proton beam therapy (PBT).Patients and methodsPatients were enrolled in a prospective trial. All participants received 75.6 to 78 Gy (RBE). Up to 6 months of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy was allowed. The Phoenix definition defined biochemical failure. Modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria defined toxicity. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires objectified QOL. Clinically significant QOL decrement was defined as ≥0.5 × baseline standard deviation.ResultsIn total, 423 men were analyzed. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk classification was used (low 43%; intermediate 56%; high 1%). At the 5.2-year median follow-up, overall and disease-specific survival rates were 99.8% and 100%, respectively. Cumulative biochemical failure rate was 5.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.0%-8.3%); acute grade 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity was 46.3%; acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was 5.0% (95% CI = 3.1%-7.3%). There was no acute grade ≥3 GI or GU toxicity. Cumulative late grade 2 GU and GI toxicity was 15.9% (95% CI = 13%-20%) and 9.7% (95% CI = 6.5%-12%), respectively. There were 2 grade 3 late GI toxicities (rectal bleeding) and no late grade ≥3 GU toxicity. The 4-year mean Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal summary scores (range; standard deviation) were 89.7 (43.8-100; 11), 91.3 (41.1-94.6; 10), 57.8 (0.0-96.2; 27.1), and 92.2 (25-95.5; 10.5), respectively. Compared with baseline, there was no clinically significant decrement in urinary, sexual, or hormonal QOL after treatment completion. A modest (<10 points), yet clinically significant, decrement in bowel QOL was appreciated throughout follow-up.ConclusionContemporary PBT resulted in excellent biochemical control, minimal risk of higher-grade toxicity, and modest QOL decrement. Further investigation comparing PBT with alternative prostate cancer treatment strategies are warranted.
| S-EPMC6871578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe report acute patient-reported outcomes using CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) of proton beam radiotherapy for high-risk or unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a prospective clinical trial. PRO-CTCAE were correlated with investigator reported-CTCAE (IR-CTCAE) to assess the degree of concordance.Methods and materials11 PRO-CTCAE questions assessed gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU), or erectile function side effects. The correlation scheme between PRO-CTCAE and IR-CTCAE was independently developed by two physicians. Analyses of PRO-CTCAE and IR-CTCAE were conducted using both descriptive terms and the converted grade scores. The Kappa statistic described the degree of concordance.Results55 patients were included. IR-CTCAE underestimated diarrhea compared to PRO-CTCAE at the end of treatment (EOT), with a 28% rate of underestimation (11% by ≥ 2 toxicity grades). Similarly, urinary tract pain was underestimated in 45% of cases (17% by ≥ 2 grades) at EOT. Differences were less pronounced at baseline or 3 months after radiotherapy. The incidence of urinary urgency and frequency tended to be overestimated prior to treatment (36% and 24%, respectively) but underestimated at EOT (35% and 31%, respectively). The degree of interference with daily activities was consistently overestimated by investigators (45%-85%). Finally, erectile dysfunction showed a 36-56% rate of discordance by ≥ 2 toxicity grades.ConclusionsOur study shows a low agreement between IR-CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE in the setting of proton therapy for prostate cancer. Compared to patient-reported outcomes, physicians underestimated the frequency and severity of urinary symptoms and diarrhea at the end of treatment. Continued use of PROs should be strongly encouraged.
| S-EPMC8463742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose:We characterized both physician- and patient-reported rates of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients treated with proton beam therapy (PBT) at our institution for prostate adenocarcinoma and identified factors associated with toxicity. Methods and materials:We treated 192 patients with PBT between July 2013 and July 2016. Included patients had ?1 year of follow-up. Potential preexisting clinical and treatment-related risk factors for GI toxicity were recorded. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 was used to score toxicity. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) bowel domain questionnaires assessed patient-reported quality of life. Associations between grade (GR) 2+ toxicity and clinical, treatment, and dosimetric factors were assessed using Cox models and corresponding hazard ratios. Results:The median follow-up was 1.7 years. Most of the observed GI toxicity (>90%) was in the form of rectal bleeding (RB). GR2+ GI toxicity and RB actuarial rates specifically at 2 years were 21.3% and 20.4%, respectively. GR3 toxicity was rare, with only 1 observed RB event. No GR4/5 toxicity was seen. The EPIC bowel domain median score was 96 (range, 61-100) pretreatment, 93 (range, 41-100) at 1 year, 89 (range, 57-100) at 1.5 years, and 89 (range, 50-100) at 2 years. Anticoagulation use was the only factor selected during multivariate analysis for predicting GR2+ RB, with a resulting concordance index of 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.68; P = .088). Type of proton technology (pencil beam scanning vs uniform scanning) and number of fields treated per day (1 vs 2) showed no significant difference in toxicity rate. Conclusions:PBT was associated with acceptable rates of GR2+ transient GI toxicity, mostly in the form of RB, which correlated with anticoagulation use. High EPIC bowel domain quality of life was maintained in the 2 years after treatment.
| S-EPMC6349581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:In this paper, we aimed to investigate the evolving debate over border closure in Korea during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, to address the main themes associated with border closure, and to discuss the factors that need to be considered when making such decisions. METHODS:We collated and reviewed previously conducted review studies on border closures during infectious disease outbreaks to derive relevant themes and factors. RESULTS:According to our systematic review on border closures and travel restrictions, the effects of such containment efforts are limited. We suggest considering the following factors when determining whether to impose border closure measures: (1) disease characteristics, (2) timeliness of implementation, (3) transmission delay and the basic reproduction number, (4) globalization and pandemics, and (5) social and economic costs. CONCLUSIONS:Our assessment indicates that the effects of border closures are at best temporary and limited. Alternative measures must be contemplated and implemented to suppress the spread of COVID-19 in particular and infectious diseases more broadly.
| S-EPMC7569016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purpose:Patient-level benefits of proton beam therapy (PBT) relative to photon therapy for prostate cancer (PC) continue to be the focus of debate. Although trials comparing the two modalities are underway, most are being conducted using "conventional" PBT (passive scattering/uniform scanning [PS/US]) rather than pencil beam scanning (PBS). The dosimetric benefits of PBS are well-known, but comparative data are limited. This analysis compares PBS toxicity rates with those of PS/US in a prospective multicenter registry. Methods:We evaluated acute/late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity rates for men with low-to-intermediate risk PC enrolled in PCG 001-09. Acute toxicities with the two techniques were compared using ?2 tests, and the cumulative incidence methods for late toxicity. Multivariable analyses (MVAs) for acute toxicity were performed using logistic regression, and cox proportional hazards models for late toxicity. Results:Patients were treated using PS/US (n?=?1105) or PBS (n?=?238). Acute grade ?2 GI toxicity in PBS did not significantly differ from that with PS/US (2.9% and 2.1%, respectively; P?=?0.47). Acute grade ?2?GU toxicity was significantly higher with PBS (21.9% and 15.1%; P?<?0.01). In MVA, PBS was significantly associated with increased acute grade ?2?GU toxicity (RR?=?1.57, p?<?0.001). Late grade ?2?GI and GU toxicities did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions:This is the first multi-institutional comparative effectiveness evaluation of PBT techniques in PC. Differences in acute GU toxicity warrant further evaluation, and highlight the urgent need for prospective data using PBT.
| S-EPMC6804653 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To report quality of life (QOL)/toxicity in men treated with proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer and to compare outcomes between passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) and spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT).Men with localized prostate cancer enrolled on a prospective QOL protocol with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up were reviewed. Comparative groups were defined by technique (PSPT vs SSPT). Patients completed Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires at baseline and every 3-6 months after proton beam therapy. Clinically meaningful differences in QOL were defined as ?0.5 × baseline standard deviation. The cumulative incidence of modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade ?2 gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity and argon plasma coagulation were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method.A total of 226 men received PSPT, and 65 received SSPT. Both PSPT and SSPT resulted in statistically significant changes in sexual, urinary, and bowel Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite summary scores. Only bowel summary, function, and bother resulted in clinically meaningful decrements beyond treatment completion. The decrement in bowel QOL persisted through 24-month follow-up. Cumulative grade ?2 GU and GI toxicity at 24 months were 13.4% and 9.6%, respectively. There was 1 grade 3 GI toxicity (PSPT group) and no other grade ?3 GI or GU toxicity. Argon plasma coagulation application was infrequent (PSPT 4.4% vs SSPT 1.5%; P=.21). No statistically significant differences were appreciated between PSPT and SSPT regarding toxicity or QOL.Both PSPT and SSPT confer low rates of grade ?2 GI or GU toxicity, with preservation of meaningful sexual and urinary QOL at 24 months. A modest, yet clinically meaningful, decrement in bowel QOL was seen throughout follow-up. No toxicity or QOL differences between PSPT and SSPT were identified. Long-term comparative results in a larger patient cohort are warranted.
| S-EPMC4086944 | biostudies-literature