PURPOSE: This is a review of our 2-year experience with the first single-gantry proton therapy (PT) system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All patients were consented to participate on an institutional review board-approved prospective patient registry between December 2013 and December 2015. PT was delivered in a single-room facility using a synchrocyclotron with proton beam energy of 250 MeV. The dataset was interrogated for demographics, diagnosis, treatment modality, and clinical trial involvement. Cases were classified as simple or complex based on fields used and immobilization. The volume of photon patients treated in our department was collected between January 2011 and December 2015 to evaluate the impact of PT on our photon patient volume. RESULTS: A total of 278 patients were treated with PT, including 228 (82%) adults and 50 (18%) pediatric cases. PT patients traveled a mean distance of 83.3 miles compared with 47.4 miles for photon patients queried in 2015. Rationale for treatment included reirradiation (20%), involvement in prospective clinical trial (14%), and proximity to critical structures to maximally spare organs at risk (66%). Forty patients were enrolled on 5 adult and 3 pediatric prospective clinical trials. The most common histologies treated were glioma (27%) and non-small cell lung cancer (18%) in adults, and medulloblastoma (22%) and low-grade glioma (24%) in pediatric patients. Prostate cancer composed 6% of PT. Complex cases composed 45% of our volume. Our photon patient volume increased yearly between 2011 and 2015, with 2780 patients completing photon treatment in 2011 and 3385 patients in 2015. PT composed 4% of overall patients treated with external beam radiation. CONCLUSIONS: The installation of our single-gantry proton facility has expanded the treatment options within our cancer center, helping to increase the number of patients we see. Patients travel from twice as far away to receive this treatment, many for typical PT indications such as pediatrics or to participate in prospective clinical trials.
PURPOSE: This is a review of our 2-year experience with the first single-gantry proton therapy (PT) system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All patients were consented to participate on an institutional review board-approved prospective patient registry between December 2013 and December 2015. PT was delivered in a single-room facility using a synchrocyclotron with proton beam energy of 250 MeV. The dataset was interrogated for demographics, diagnosis, treatment modality, and clinical trial involvement. Cases were classified as simple or complex based on fields used and immobilization. The volume of photon patients treated in our department was collected between January 2011 and December 2015 to evaluate the impact of PT on our photon patient volume. RESULTS: A total of 278 patients were treated with PT, including 228 (82%) adults and 50 (18%) pediatric cases. PT patients traveled a mean distance of 83.3 miles compared with 47.4 miles for photon patients queried in 2015. Rationale for treatment included reirradiation (20%), involvement in prospective clinical trial (14%), and proximity to critical structures to maximally spare organs at risk (66%). Forty patients were enrolled on 5 adult and 3 pediatric prospective clinical trials. The most common histologies treated were glioma (27%) and non-small cell lung cancer (18%) in adults, and medulloblastoma (22%) and low-grade glioma (24%) in pediatric patients. Prostate cancer composed 6% of PT. Complex cases composed 45% of our volume. Our photon patient volume increased yearly between 2011 and 2015, with 2780 patients completing photon treatment in 2011 and 3385 patients in 2015. PT composed 4% of overall patients treated with external beam radiation. CONCLUSIONS: The installation of our single-gantry proton facility has expanded the treatment options within our cancer center, helping to increase the number of patients we see. Patients travel from twice as far away to receive this treatment, many for typical PT indications such as pediatrics or to participate in prospective clinical trials.
Authors: Omar A Zeidan; Ethan Pepmiller; Twyla Willoughby; Zhiqiu Li; James Burkavage; Brian Harper; Michael Fraser; Katie Moffatt; Sanford L Meeks; Naren Ramakrishna Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck; Lauren Henke; Olga Green; Rojano Kashani; Sahaja Acharya; Jeffrey D Bradley; Clifford G Robinson; Maria Thomas; Imran Zoberi; Wade Thorstad; Hiram Gay; Jiayi Huang; Michael Roach; Vivian Rodriguez; Lakshmi Santanam; Harold Li; Hua Li; Jessika Contreras; Thomas Mazur; Dennis Hallahan; Jeffrey R Olsen; Parag Parikh; Sasa Mutic; Jeff Michalski Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-06-01
Authors: Mark T Corkum; Wei Liu; David A Palma; Glenn S Bauman; Robert E Dinniwell; Andrew Warner; Mark V Mishra; Alexander V Louie Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Mohammad Amin Hosseini; Mohammad Mohamadianpanah; Mohammad Zare-Bandeamiri; Mohammad Amin Mosleh-Shirazi Journal: Iran J Med Sci Date: 2018-05
Authors: Matthew K Forsthoefel; Elizabeth Ballew; Keith R Unger; Peter H Ahn; Sonali Rudra; Dalong Pang; Sean P Collins; Anatoly Dritschilo; William Harter; Nitika Paudel; Brian T Collins; Jonathan W Lischalk Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 6.244