Dataset Information

Utilization of neoadjuvant intensity-modulated radiation therapy and proton beam therapy for esophageal cancer in the United States.

ABSTRACT: Randomized esophageal cancer (EC) trials have utilized two- or three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). Advanced radiotherapy (RT) techniques [(ARTs): intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT)] may have benefits, but are relatively unproven. This is the first study to date evaluating utilization of ARTs versus 3DCRT in the trimodality setting in the United States.The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried (2004-2013) for newly-diagnosed cT1b-T4bN0/N+M0 EC receiving neoadjuvant CRT followed by esophagectomy. The primary objective was to assess temporal trends, with multivariable logistic regression analysis assessing factors predictive of receiving ARTs. Secondarily, Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated overall survival (OS), Cox proportional hazards modeling determined variables associated with OS, and postoperative complications were compared between cohorts.Altogether, 3,138 patients met criteria; 1,398 (45%) received 3DCRT, and 1,740 (55%) received ARTs (99% IMRT, 1% PBT). Temporally, utilization of ARTs is steadily rising in the United States, from 20% in 2004 to 69% in 2013, corresponding with a progressive decrease in utilization of 3DCRT. ARTs were more often delivered with advancing age, squamous cell histology, N2+ disease, and at academic centers (P<0.05 for all). Centers in the Southwest were more likely to use ARTs, and those in the Midwest least likely (P<0.05 for both). As expected, there were no OS differences (P=0.8477); there were also no differences in postoperative events (P>0.05 for all). Treatment at an academic center independently correlated with improved OS (P<0.001).Utilization of ARTs (IMRT in the vast majority) is steadily rising in the United States; 3DCRT is now used in a minority of patients. This has implications for payers and insurance coverage. ART use is impacted by not only age and disease factors, but also regional and facility differences. Treatment at an academic facility independently correlated with higher survival, which has implications for patient counseling.

SUBMITTER: Haque W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5934162 | biostudies-other | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Utilization of neoadjuvant intensity-modulated radiation therapy and proton beam therapy for esophageal cancer in the United States.

Haque Waqar W Verma Vivek V Butler E Brian EB Teh Bin S BS

Journal of gastrointestinal oncology 20180401 2

<h4>Background</h4>Randomized esophageal cancer (EC) trials have utilized two- or three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). Advanced radiotherapy (RT) techniques [(ARTs): intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT)] may have benefits, but are relatively unproven. This is the first study to date evaluating utilization of ARTs versus 3DCRT in the trimodality setting in the United States.<h4>Methods</h4>The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried (2004-2013) f ...[more]

PMID: 29755767

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWhether dosimetric advantages of proton beam therapy (PBT) translate to improved clinical outcomes compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) remains unclear. This randomized trial compared total toxicity burden (TTB) and progression-free survival (PFS) between these modalities for esophageal cancer.MethodsThis phase IIB trial randomly assigned patients to PBT or IMRT (50.4 Gy), stratified for histology, resectability, induction chemotherapy, and stage. The prespecified coprimary end points were TTB and PFS. TTB, a composite score of 11 distinct adverse events (AEs), including common toxicities as well as postoperative complications (POCs) in operated patients, quantified the extent of AE severity experienced over the duration of 1 year following treatment. The trial was conducted using Bayesian group sequential design with three planned interim analyses at 33%, 50%, and 67% of expected accrual (adjusted for follow-up).ResultsThis trial (commenced April 2012) was approved for closure and analysis upon activation of NRG-GI006 in March 2019, which occurred immediately prior to the planned 67% interim analysis. Altogether, 145 patients were randomly assigned (72 IMRT, 73 PBT), and 107 patients (61 IMRT, 46 PBT) were evaluable. Median follow-up was 44.1 months. Fifty-one patients (30 IMRT, 21 PBT) underwent esophagectomy; 80% of PBT was passive scattering. The posterior mean TTB was 2.3 times higher for IMRT (39.9; 95% highest posterior density interval, 26.2-54.9) than PBT (17.4; 10.5-25.0). The mean POC score was 7.6 times higher for IMRT (19.1; 7.3-32.3) versus PBT (2.5; 0.3-5.2). The posterior probability that mean TTB was lower for PBT compared with IMRT was 0.9989, which exceeded the trial's stopping boundary of 0.9942 at the 67% interim analysis. The 3-year PFS rate (50.8% v 51.2%) and 3-year overall survival rates (44.5% v 44.5%) were similar.ConclusionFor locally advanced esophageal cancer, PBT reduced the risk and severity of AEs compared with IMRT while maintaining similar PFS.

Project description:Purpose:Intensity modulated proton beam radiation therapy (IMPT) has a clinically significant dosimetric advantage over intensity modulated photon radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of patients with esophageal cancer, particularly for sparing the heart and lungs. We compared acute radiation therapy-related toxicities and short-term clinical outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer who received treatment with IMPT or IMRT. Methods and Materials:We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of consecutive adult patients with esophageal cancer who underwent concurrent chemoradiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT in the definitive or neoadjuvant setting from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2018, with additional follow-up data collected through January 31, 2019. Treatment-related toxicities were evaluated per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4. Survival outcomes were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results:A total of 64 patients (32 per group) were included (median follow-up time: 10 months for IMPT patients vs 14 months for IMRT patients). The most common radiation therapy regimen was 45 Gy in 25 fractions, and 80% of patients received a simultaneous integrated boost to a median cumulative dose of 50 Gy. Similar numbers of IMPT patients (n = 15; 47%) and IMRT patients (n = 18; 56%) underwent surgery (P = .07), with no difference in pathologic complete response rates (IMPT: n = 5; 33% vs IMRT: n = 7; 39%; P = .14). At 1 year, the clinical outcomes also were similar for IMPT and IMRT patients, respectively. Local control was 92% versus 84% (P = .87), locoregional control 92% versus 80% (P = .76), distant metastasis-free survival 87% versus 65% (P = .08), progression-free survival 71% versus 45% (P = .15), and overall survival 74% versus 71% (P = .62). The rate of acute treatment-related grade 3 toxicity was similar between the groups (P = .71). Conclusions:In our early experience, IMPT is a safe and effective treatment when administered as part of definitive or trimodality therapy. Longer follow-up is required to evaluate the effectiveness of IMPT.

Project description:This paper presents a concept for a proton therapy system capable of delivering intensity modulated proton therapy using a fan beam of protons. This system would allow present and future gantry-based facilities to deliver state-of-the-art proton therapy with the greater normal tissue sparing made possible by intensity modulation techniques.A method for producing a divergent fan beam of protons using a pair of electromagnetic quadrupoles is described and particle transport through the quadrupole doublet is simulated using a commercially available software package. To manipulate the fan beam of protons, a modulation device is developed. This modulator inserts or retracts acrylic leaves of varying thickness from subsections of the fan beam. Each subsection, or beam channel, creates what effectively becomes a beam spot within the fan area. Each channel is able to provide 0-255 mm of range shift for its associated beam spot, or stop the beam and act as an intensity modulator. Results of particle transport simulations through the quadrupole system are incorporated into the MCNPX Monte Carlo transport code along with a model of the range and intensity modulation device. Several design parameters were investigated and optimized, culminating in the ability to create topotherapy treatment plans using distal-edge tracking on both phantom and patient datasets.Beam transport calculations show that a pair of electromagnetic quadrupoles can be used to create a divergent fan beam of 200 MeV protons over a distance of 2.1 m. The quadrupole lengths were 30 and 48 cm, respectively, with transverse field gradients less than 20 T/m, which is within the range of water-cooled magnets for the quadrupole radii used. MCNPX simulations of topotherapy treatment plans suggest that, when using the distal edge tracking delivery method, many delivery angles are more important than insisting on narrow beam channel widths in order to obtain conformal target coverage. Overall, the sharp distal falloff of a proton depth-dose distribution was found to provide sufficient control over the dose distribution to meet objectives, even with coarse lateral resolution and channel widths as large as 2 cm. Treatment plans on both phantom and patient data show that dose conformity suffers when treatments are delivered from less than approximately ten angles. Treatment time for a sample prostate delivery is estimated to be on the order of 10 min, and neutron production is estimated to be comparable to that found for existing collimated systems.Fan beam proton therapy is a method of delivering intensity modulated proton therapy which may be employed as an alternative to magnetic scanning systems. A fan beam of protons can be created by a set of quadrupole magnets and modified by a dual-purpose range and intensity modulator. This can be used to deliver inversely planned treatments, with spot intensities optimized to meet user defined dose objectives. Additionally, the ability of a fan beam delivery system to effectively treat multiple beam spots simultaneously may provide advantages as compared to spot scanning deliveries.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the dosimetric performances of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans generated with two different beam angle configurations (the Right-Left oblique posterior beams and the Superior-Inferior oblique posterior beams) for the treatment of distal esophageal carcinoma in the presence of uncertainties and interplay effect.Methods and materialsTwenty patients' IMPT plans were retrospectively selected, with 10 patients treated with the R-L oblique posterior beams (Group R-L) and the other 10 patients treated with the S-I oblique posterior beams (Group S-I). Patients in both groups were matched by their clinical target volumes (CTVs-high and low dose levels) and respiratory motion amplitudes. Dose-volume-histogram (DVH) indices were used to assess plan quality. DVH bandwidth was calculated to evaluate plan robustness. Interplay effect was quantified using four-dimensional (4D) dynamic dose calculation with random respiratory starting phase of each fraction. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for heart, liver, and lung was calculated, respectively, to estimate the clinical outcomes. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical comparison between the two groups.ResultsCompared with plans in Group R-L, plans in Group S-I resulted in significantly lower liver Dmean and lung V30Gy[RBE] with slightly higher but clinically acceptable spinal cord Dmax . Similar plan robustness was observed between the two groups. When interplay effect was considered, plans in Group S-I performed statistically better for heart Dmean and V30Gy[RBE] , lung Dmean and V5Gy[RBE] , and liver Dmean , with slightly increased but clinically acceptable spinal cord Dmax . NTCP for liver was significantly better in Group S-I.ConclusionsIMPT plans in Group S-I have better sparing of liver, heart, and lungs at the slight cost of spinal cord maximum dose protection, and are more interplay-effect resilient compared to IMPT plans in Group R-L. Our study supports the routine use of the S-I oblique posterior beams for the treatments of distal esophageal carcinoma.

Project description:PurposeAlthough both intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) offer effective long-term disease control for localized prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data directly comparing the 2 modalities.MethodsThe data from 334 patients treated with conventionally fractionated (79.2 GyRBE in 44 fractions) PBT or IMRT were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to balance factors associated with biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS). Age, race, and comorbidities (not BFFS associates) remained imbalanced after matching. Univariable and covariate-adjusted multivariable (MVA) Cox regression models were used to determine if modality affected BFFS.ResultsOf 334 patients, 176 (52.7%) were included in the matched cohort with exact matching to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. With a median follow-up time of 9.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.8-10.2 years), long-term BFFS was similar between the IMRT and PBT matched arms with 8-year estimates of 85% (95% CI: 76%-91%) and 91% (95% CI: 82%-96%, P = .39), respectively. On MVA, modality was not significantly associated with BFFS in both the unmatched (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.35-1.63, P = .47) and matched (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33-2.33, P = .78) cohorts. Prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS) were also similar (P > .05). However, in an unmatched analysis, the PBT arm had significantly fewer incidences of secondary cancers within the irradiated field (0.6%, 95% CI: 0.0%-3.1% versus 4.5%, 95% CI: 1.8%-9.0%, P = .028).ConclusionsBoth PBT and IMRT offer excellent long-term disease control for PCa, with no significant differences between the 2 modalities in BFFS, PCSS, and OS in matched patients. In the unmatched cohort, fewer incidences of secondary malignancy were noted in the PBT group; however, owing to overall low incidence of secondary cancer and imbalanced patient characteristics between the 2 groups, these data are strictly hypothesis generating and require further investigation.

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.

Project description:PurposeData comparing moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are lacking. We aim to compare late toxicity profiles of patients with early-stage prostate cancer treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT.Methods and materialsThis multi-institutional analysis included patients with low- or intermediate-risk biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma from 7 tertiary referral centers treated from 1998 to 2018. All patients were treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation, defined as 250 to 300 cGy per daily fraction given for 4 to 6 weeks, and stratified by use of IMRT or PBT. Primary outcomes were late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Adjusted toxicity rates were calculated using inverse probability of treatment weighting, accounting for race, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, age, pretreatment International Prostate Symptom Score (GU only), and anticoagulant use (GI only).ResultsA total of 1850 patients were included: 1282 IMRT (median follow-up 80.0 months) and 568 PBT (median follow-up 43.9 months). Overall toxicity rates were low, with the majority of patients experiencing no late GU (56.6%, n = 1048) or late GI (74.4%, n = 1377) toxicity. No difference was seen in the rates of late toxicity between the groups, with late grade 3+ GU toxicity of 2.0% versus 3.9% (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.28) and late grade 2+ GI toxicity of 14.6% versus 4.7% (OR 2.69; confidence interval 0.80-9.05) for the PBT and IMRT cohorts, respectively. On multivariable analysis, no factors were significantly predictive of GU toxicity, and only anticoagulant use was significantly predictive of GI toxicity (OR 1.90; P = .008).ConclusionsIn this large, multi-institutional analysis of 1850 patients with early-stage prostate cancer, treatment with moderately hypofractionated IMRT and PBT resulted in low rates of toxicity. No difference was seen in late GI and GU toxicity between the modalities during long-term follow-up. Both treatments are safe and well tolerated.

Dataset Information

Utilization of neoadjuvant intensity-modulated radiation therapy and proton beam therapy for esophageal cancer in the United States.

Publications

Utilization of neoadjuvant intensity-modulated radiation therapy and proton beam therapy for esophageal cancer in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets