Dataset Information

Bayesian Adaptive Randomization Trial of Passive Scattering Proton Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Photon Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

ABSTRACT: Purpose This randomized trial compared outcomes of passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT) versus intensity-modulated (photon) radiotherapy (IMRT), both with concurrent chemotherapy, for inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We hypothesized that PSPT exposes less lung tissue to radiation than IMRT and thereby reduces toxicity without compromising tumor control. The primary end points were grade ≥ 3 radiation pneumonitis (RP) and local failure (LF). Patients and Methods Eligible patients had stage IIB to IIIB NSCLC (or stage IV NSCLC with a single brain metastasis or recurrent lung or mediastinal disease after surgery) who were candidates for concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Pairs of treatment plans for IMRT and PSPT were created for each patient. Patients were eligible for random assignment only if both plans satisfied the same prespecified dose-volume constraints for at-risk organs at the same tumor dose. Results Compared with IMRT (n = 92), PSPT (n = 57) exposed less lung tissue to doses of 5 to 10 Gy(RBE), which is the absorbed Gy dose multiplied by the relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) factor for protons; exposed more lung tissue to ≥ 20 Gy(RBE), but exposed less heart tissue at all dose levels between 5 and 80 Gy(RBE). The grade ≥ 3 RP rate for all patients was 8.1% (IMRT, 6.5%; PSPT, 10.5%); corresponding LF rates were 10.7% (all), 10.9% (IMRT), and 10.5% (PSPT). The posterior probability of IMRT being better than PSPT was 0.54. Exploratory analysis showed that the RP and LF rates at 12 months for patients enrolled before versus after the trial midpoint were 21.1% (before) versus 18.2% (after) for the IMRT group (P = .047) and 31.0% (before) versus 13.1% (after) for the PSPT group (P = .027). Conclusion PSPT did not improve dose-volume indices for lung but did for heart. No benefit was noted in RP or LF after PSPT. Improvements in both end points were observed over the course of the trial.

SUBMITTER: Liao Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6008104 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveAlthough intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMPT) is dosimetrically superior to passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT) for locally advanced NSCLC (LA-NSCLC), direct comparisons of clinical outcomes are lacking. Here, we compare toxicity profiles and clinical outcomes after IMPT versus PSPT for LA-NSCLC.MethodsThis is a nonrandomized, comparative study of two independent cohorts with LA-NSCLC (stage II-IIIB, stage IV with solitary brain metastasis) treated with concurrent chemotherapy and proton beam therapy. Toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0) and outcomes were prospectively collected as part of a clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00915005) or prospective registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00991094).ResultsOf 139 patients, 86 (62%) received PSPT and 53 (38%) IMPT; median follow-up times were 23.9 and 29.0 months, respectively. IMPT delivered lower mean radiation doses to the lungs (PSPT 16.0 Gy versus IMPT 13.0 Gy, p < 0.001), heart (10.7 Gy versus 6.6 Gy, p = 0.004), and esophagus (27.4 Gy versus 21.8 Gy, p = 0.005). Consequently, the IMPT cohort had lower rates of grade 3 or higher pulmonary (17% versus 2%, p = 0.005) and cardiac (11% versus 0%, p = 0.01) toxicities. Six patients (7%) with PSPT and zero patients (0%) with IMPT experienced grade 4 or 5 toxicity. Lower rates of pulmonary (28% versus 3%, p = 0.006) and cardiac (14% versus 0%, p = 0.05) toxicities were observed in the IMPT cohort even after propensity score matching for baseline imbalances. There was also a trend toward longer median overall survival in the IMPT group (23.9 mo versus 36.2 mo, p = 0.09). No difference was found in the 3-year rates of local (25% versus 20%, p = 0.44), local-regional (29% versus 36%, p = 0.56) and distant (52% versus 51%, p = 0.71) recurrences.ConclusionsIMPT is associated with lower radiation doses to the lung, heart, and esophagus, and lower rates of grade 3 or higher cardiopulmonary toxicity; additional clinical studies will be needed to assess the potential differences in survival between the two techniques.

Project description:PurposeAt present, proton craniospinal irradiation (CSI) for growing children is delivered to the whole vertebral body (WVB) to avoid asymmetric growth. We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and potential clinical benefit of delivering vertebral body sparing (VBS) versus WVB CSI with passively scattered (PS) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in growing children treated for medulloblastoma.Methods and materialsFive plans were generated for medulloblastoma patients, who had been previously treated with CSI PS proton radiation therapy: (1) single posteroanterior (PA) PS field covering the WVB (PS-PA-WVB); (2) single PA PS field that included only the thecal sac in the target volume (PS-PA-VBS); (3) single PA IMPT field covering the WVB (IMPT-PA-WVB); (4) single PA IMPT field, target volume including thecal sac only (IMPT-PA-VBS); and (5) 2 posterior-oblique (-35°, +35°) IMPT fields, with the target volume including the thecal sac only (IMPT2F-VBS). For all cases, 23.4 Gy (relative biologic effectiveness [RBE]) was prescribed to 95% of the spinal canal. The dose, linear energy transfer, and variable-RBE-weighted dose distributions were calculated for all plans using the tool for particle simulation, version 2, Monte Carlo system.ResultsIMPT VBS techniques efficiently spared the anterior vertebral bodies (AVBs), even when accounting for potential higher variable RBE predicted by linear energy transfer distributions. Assuming an RBE of 1.1, the V10 Gy(RBE) decreased from 100% for the WVB techniques to 59.5% to 76.8% for the cervical, 29.9% to 34.6% for the thoracic, and 20.6% to 25.1% for the lumbar AVBs, and the V20 Gy(RBE) decreased from 99.0% to 17.8% to 20.0% for the cervical, 7.2% to 7.6% for the thoracic, and 4.0% to 4.6% for the lumbar AVBs when IMPT VBS techniques were applied. The corresponding percentages for the PS VBS technique were higher.ConclusionsAdvanced proton techniques can sufficiently reduce the dose to the vertebral body and allow for vertebral column growth for children with central nervous system tumors requiring CSI. This was true even when considering variable RBE values. A clinical trial is planned for VBS to the thoracic and lumbosacral spine in growing children.

Project description:PurposeWe compared work outcomes in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), randomized to intensity-modulated proton (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for chemoradiation therapy (CRT).Patients and methodsIn 147 patients with stage II-IVB squamous cell OPC participating in patient-reported outcomes assessments, a prespecified secondary aim of a randomized phase II/III trial of IMPT (n = 69) versus IMRT (n = 78), we compared absenteeism, presenteeism (i.e., the extent to which an employee is not fully functional at work), and work productivity losses. We used the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire at baseline (pre-CRT), at the end of CRT, and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. A one-sided Cochran-Armitage test was used to analyze within-arm temporal trends, and a χ2 test was used to compare between-arm differences. Among working patients, at each follow-up point, a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare work-productivity scores.ResultsPatient characteristics in IMPT versus IMRT arms were similar. In the IMPT arm, within-arm analysis demonstrated that an increasing proportion of patients resumed working after IMPT, from 60% (40 of 67) pre-CRT and 71% (30 of 42) at 1 year to 78% (18 of 23) at 2 years (P = 0.025). In the IMRT arm, the proportion remained stable, with 57% (43 of 76) pre-CRT, 54% (21 of 39) at 1 year, and 52% (13 of 25) working at 2 years (P = 0.47). By 2 years after CRT, the between-arm difference between patients who had IMPT and those who had IMRT trended toward significance (P = 0.06). Regardless of treatment arm, among working patients, the most severe work impairments occurred from treatment initiation to the end of CRT, with significant recovery from absenteeism, presenteeism, and productivity impairments by the 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001 for all). Higher magnitudes of recovery from absenteeism (at 1 year, P = 0.05; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) and composite work impairment scores (at 1 year, P = 0.04; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) were seen in patients treated with IMPT versus those treated with IMRT.ConclusionIn patients with OPC receiving curative CRT, patients randomized to IMPT demonstrated increasing work and productivity recovery trends. Studies are needed to identify mechanisms underlying head and neck CRT treatment causing work disability and impairment.

Project description:Owing to its physical properties, intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) used for patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma has the ability to reduce the dose to organs at risk compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) while maintaining adequate tumor coverage. Our aim was to compare the clinical outcomes of these two treatment modalities.We performed a 1:2 matching of IMPT to IMRT patients. Our study cohort consisted of IMPT patients from a prospective quality of life study and consecutive IMRT patients treated at a single institution during the period 2010-2014. Patients were matched on unilateral/bilateral treatment, disease site, human papillomavirus status, T and N status, smoking status, and receipt of concomitant chemotherapy. Survival analyzes were performed using a Cox model and binary toxicity endpoints using a logistic regression analysis.Fifty IMPT and 100 IMRT patients were included. The median follow-up time was 32months. There were no imbalances in patient/tumor characteristics except for age (mean age 56.8years for IMRT patients and 61.1years for IMPT patients, p-value=0.010). Statistically significant differences were not observed in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR)=0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12-2.50, p-value=0.44) or in progression-free survival (HR=1.02; 95% CI: 0.41-2.54; p-value=0.96). The age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) for the presence of a gastrostomy (G)-tube during treatment for IMPT vs IMRT were OR=0.53; 95% CI: 0.24-1.15; p-value=0.11 and OR=0.43; 95% CI: 0.16-1.17; p-value=0.10 at 3months after treatment. When considering the pre-planned composite endpoint of grade 3 weight loss or G-tube presence, the ORs were OR=0.44; 95% CI: 0.19-1.0; p-value=0.05 at 3months after treatment and OR=0.23; 95% CI: 0.07-0.73; p-value=0.01 at 1year after treatment.Our results suggest that IMPT is associated with reduced rates of feeding tube dependency and severe weight loss without jeopardizing outcome. Prospective multicenter randomized trials are needed to validate such findings.

Dataset Information

Bayesian Adaptive Randomization Trial of Passive Scattering Proton Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Photon Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets