PURPOSE: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a promising modality for the management of thoracic malignancies. We report our preliminary experience of treating esophageal cancer patients with concurrent chemotherapy (CChT) and PBT (CChT/PBT) at MD Anderson Cancer Center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is an analysis of 62 esophageal cancer patients enrolled on a prospective study evaluating normal tissue toxicity from CChT/PBT from 2006 to 2010. Patients were treated with passive scattering PBT with two- or three-field beam arrangement using 180 to 250 MV protons. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to assess time-to-event outcomes and compared the distributions between groups using the log-rank test. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 20.1 months for survivors. The median age was 68 years (range, 38-86). Most patients were males (82%) who had adenocarcinomas (76%) and Stage II-III disease (84%). The median radiation dose was 50.4 Gy (RBE [relative biologic equivalence]) (range, 36-57.6). The most common grade 2 to 3 acute toxicities from CChT/PBT were esophagitis (46.8%), fatigue (43.6%), nausea (33.9%), anorexia (30.1%), and radiation dermatitis (16.1%). There were two cases of grade 2 and 3 radiation pneumonitis and two cases of grade 5 toxicities. A total of 29 patients (46.8%) received preoperative CChT/PBT, with one postoperative death. The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate for the surgical cohort was 28%, and the pCR and near CR rates (0%-1% residual cells) were 50%. While there were significantly fewer local-regional recurrences in the preoperative group (3/29) than in the definitive CChT/PBT group (16/33) (log-rank test, p = 0.005), there were no differences in distant metastatic (DM)-free interval or overall survival (OS) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of patients treated with PBT/CChT for esophageal cancer. Our data suggest that this modality is associated with a few severe toxicities, but the pathologic response and clinical outcomes are encouraging. Prospective comparison with more traditional approach is warranted.
PURPOSE: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a promising modality for the management of thoracic malignancies. We report our preliminary experience of treating esophageal cancerpatients with concurrent chemotherapy (CChT) and PBT (CChT/PBT) at MD Anderson Cancer Center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is an analysis of 62 esophageal cancerpatients enrolled on a prospective study evaluating normal tissue toxicity from CChT/PBT from 2006 to 2010. Patients were treated with passive scattering PBT with two- or three-field beam arrangement using 180 to 250 MV protons. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to assess time-to-event outcomes and compared the distributions between groups using the log-rank test. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 20.1 months for survivors. The median age was 68 years (range, 38-86). Most patients were males (82%) who had adenocarcinomas (76%) and Stage II-III disease (84%). The median radiation dose was 50.4 Gy (RBE [relative biologic equivalence]) (range, 36-57.6). The most common grade 2 to 3 acute toxicities from CChT/PBT were esophagitis (46.8%), fatigue (43.6%), nausea (33.9%), anorexia (30.1%), and radiation dermatitis (16.1%). There were two cases of grade 2 and 3 radiation pneumonitis and two cases of grade 5 toxicities. A total of 29 patients (46.8%) received preoperative CChT/PBT, with one postoperative death. The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate for the surgical cohort was 28%, and the pCR and near CR rates (0%-1% residual cells) were 50%. While there were significantly fewer local-regional recurrences in the preoperative group (3/29) than in the definitive CChT/PBT group (16/33) (log-rank test, p = 0.005), there were no differences in distant metastatic (DM)-free interval or overall survival (OS) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of patients treated with PBT/CChT for esophageal cancer. Our data suggest that this modality is associated with a few severe toxicities, but the pathologic response and clinical outcomes are encouraging. Prospective comparison with more traditional approach is warranted.
Authors: U Isacsson; B Lennernäs; E Grusell; B Jung; A Montelius; B Glimelius Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1998-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James Welsh; Daniel Gomez; Matthew B Palmer; Beverly A Riley; Amin V Mayankkumar; Ritsuko Komaki; Lei Dong; X Ronald Zhu; Anna Likhacheva; Zhongxing Liao; Wayne L Hofstetter; Jaffer A Ajani; James D Cox Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Teruhiko Terasawa; Tomas Dvorak; Stanley Ip; Gowri Raman; Joseph Lau; Thomas A Trikalinos Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-09-14 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Xiaodong Zhang; Kuai-le Zhao; Thomas M Guerrero; Sean E McGuire; Brian Yaremko; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Zhouguang Hui; Yupeng Li; Wayne D Newhauser; Radhe Mohan; Zhongxing Liao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jingya Wang; Caimiao Wei; Susan L Tucker; Bevan Myles; Matthew Palmer; Wayne L Hofstetter; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao; Steven H Lin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038