Mark V Mishra1, Sameer Aggarwal2, Soren M Bentzen3, Nancy Knight4, Minesh P Mehta5, William F Regine4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: mmishra@umm.edu. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Miami Cancer Institute at Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review and assess ongoing proton beam therapy (PBT) clinical trials and to identify major gaps. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Active PBT clinical trials were identified from clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Registry. Data on clinical trial disease site, age group, projected patient enrollment, expected start and end dates, study type, and funding source were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 122 active PBT clinical trials were identified, with target enrollment of >42,000 patients worldwide. Ninety-six trials (79%), with a median planned sample size of 68, were classified as interventional studies. Observational studies accounted for 21% of trials but 71% (n=29,852) of planned patient enrollment. The most common PBT clinical trials focus on gastrointestinal tract tumors (21%, n=26), tumors of the central nervous system (15%, n=18), and prostate cancer (12%, n=15). Five active studies (lung, esophagus, head and neck, prostate, breast) will randomize patients between protons and photons, and 3 will randomize patients between protons and carbon ion therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The PBT clinical trial portfolio is expanding rapidly. Although the majority of ongoing studies are interventional, the majority of patients will be accrued to observational studies. Future efforts should focus on strategies to encourage optimal patient enrollment and retention, with an emphasis on randomized, controlled trials, which will require support from third-party payers. Results of ongoing PBT studies should be evaluated in terms of comparative effectiveness, as well as incremental effectiveness and value offered by PBT in comparison with conventional radiation modalities.
PURPOSE: To review and assess ongoing proton beam therapy (PBT) clinical trials and to identify major gaps. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Active PBT clinical trials were identified from clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Registry. Data on clinical trial disease site, age group, projected patient enrollment, expected start and end dates, study type, and funding source were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 122 active PBT clinical trials were identified, with target enrollment of >42,000 patients worldwide. Ninety-six trials (79%), with a median planned sample size of 68, were classified as interventional studies. Observational studies accounted for 21% of trials but 71% (n=29,852) of planned patient enrollment. The most common PBT clinical trials focus on gastrointestinal tract tumors (21%, n=26), tumors of the central nervous system (15%, n=18), and prostate cancer (12%, n=15). Five active studies (lung, esophagus, head and neck, prostate, breast) will randomize patients between protons and photons, and 3 will randomize patients between protons and carbon ion therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The PBT clinical trial portfolio is expanding rapidly. Although the majority of ongoing studies are interventional, the majority of patients will be accrued to observational studies. Future efforts should focus on strategies to encourage optimal patient enrollment and retention, with an emphasis on randomized, controlled trials, which will require support from third-party payers. Results of ongoing PBT studies should be evaluated in terms of comparative effectiveness, as well as incremental effectiveness and value offered by PBT in comparison with conventional radiation modalities.
Authors: Francesco Dionisi; Maurizio Amichetti; Carlo Algranati; Irene Giacomelli; Mattia Barbareschi; Mauro Recla; Cesare Grandi Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2017-09-26
Authors: Pavlina K Todorova; Eliot Fletcher-Sananikone; Bipasha Mukherjee; Rahul Kollipara; Vamsidhara Vemireddy; Xian-Jin Xie; Peter M Guida; Michael D Story; Kimmo Hatanpaa; Amyn A Habib; Ralf Kittler; Robert Bachoo; Robert Hromas; John R Floyd; Sandeep Burma Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Suliana Teoh; Francesca Fiorini; Ben George; Katherine A Vallis; Frank Van den Heuvel Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 3.629
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