Yao-Yu Wu1, Kang-Hsing Fan2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, New Taipei Municipal TuCheng Hospital, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Localized prostate cancer can be treated with several radiotherapeutic approaches. Proton therapy (PT) can precisely target tumors, thus sparing normal tissues and reducing side-effects without sacrificing cancer control. However, PT is a costly treatment compared with conventional photon radiotherapy, which may undermine its overall efficacy. In this review, we summarize current data on the dosimetric rationale, clinical benefits, and cost of PT for prostate cancer. METHODS: An extensive literature review of PT for prostate cancer was performed with emphasis on studies investigating dosimetric advantage, clinical outcomes, cost-effective strategies, and novel technology trends. RESULTS: PT is safe, and its efficacy is comparable to that of standard photon-based therapy or brachytherapy. Data on gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and sexual function toxicity profiles are conflicting; however, PT is associated with a low risk of second cancer and has no effects on testosterone levels. Regarding cost-effectiveness, PT is suboptimal, although evolving trends in radiation delivery and construction of PT centers may help reduce the cost. CONCLUSION: PT has several advantages over conventional photon radiotherapy, and novel approaches may increase its efficacy and safety. Large prospective randomized trials comparing photon therapy with proton-based treatments are ongoing and may provide data on the differences in efficacy, toxicity profile, and quality of life between proton- and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: PT provides excellent physical advantages and has a superior dose profile compared with X-ray radiotherapy. Further evidence from clinical trials and research studies will clarify the role of PT in the treatment of prostate cancer, and facilitate the implementation of PT in a more accessible, affordable, efficient, and safe way.
OBJECTIVE: Localized prostate cancer can be treated with several radiotherapeutic approaches. Proton therapy (PT) can precisely target tumors, thus sparing normal tissues and reducing side-effects without sacrificing cancer control. However, PT is a costly treatment compared with conventional photon radiotherapy, which may undermine its overall efficacy. In this review, we summarize current data on the dosimetric rationale, clinical benefits, and cost of PT for prostate cancer. METHODS: An extensive literature review of PT for prostate cancer was performed with emphasis on studies investigating dosimetric advantage, clinical outcomes, cost-effective strategies, and novel technology trends. RESULTS: PT is safe, and its efficacy is comparable to that of standard photon-based therapy or brachytherapy. Data on gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and sexual function toxicity profiles are conflicting; however, PT is associated with a low risk of second cancer and has no effects on testosterone levels. Regarding cost-effectiveness, PT is suboptimal, although evolving trends in radiation delivery and construction of PT centers may help reduce the cost. CONCLUSION: PT has several advantages over conventional photon radiotherapy, and novel approaches may increase its efficacy and safety. Large prospective randomized trials comparing photon therapy with proton-based treatments are ongoing and may provide data on the differences in efficacy, toxicity profile, and quality of life between proton- and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: PT provides excellent physical advantages and has a superior dose profile compared with X-ray radiotherapy. Further evidence from clinical trials and research studies will clarify the role of PT in the treatment of prostate cancer, and facilitate the implementation of PT in a more accessible, affordable, efficient, and safe way.
Authors: Dietmar Georg; Johannes Hopfgartner; Joanna Gòra; Peter Kuess; Gabriele Kragl; Daniel Berger; Neamat Hegazy; Gregor Goldner; Petra Georg Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Bradford S Hoppe; Jeff M Michalski; Nancy P Mendenhall; Christopher G Morris; Randal H Henderson; Romaine C Nichols; William M Mendenhall; Christopher R Williams; Meredith M Regan; Jonathan J Chipman; Catrina M Crociani; Howard M Sandler; Martin G Sanda; Daniel A Hamstra Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-12-30 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrew Cohen; Brittany Lapin; Chi H Wang; Brian Helfand; David Victorson; Kristian Novakovic Journal: Urology Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: W U Shipley; L J Verhey; J E Munzenrider; H D Suit; M M Urie; P L McManus; R H Young; J W Shipley; A L Zietman; P J Biggs Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1995-04-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Carlos E Vargas; William F Hartsell; Megan Dunn; Sameer R Keole; Lucius Doh; Elaine Eisenbeisz; Gary L Larson Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Thomas J Pugh; Seungtaek Choi; Graciela M Nogueras-Gonzalaez; Quyhn Nhu Nguyen; Usama Mahmood; Steven J Frank; Benson Mathai; X Ron Zhu; Narayan Sahoo; Michael Gillin; Deborah A Kuban; Karen E Hoffman; Sean E McGuire; Andrew K Lee Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2016-08-29
Authors: Linda G W Kerkmeijer; Veerle H Groen; Floris J Pos; Karin Haustermans; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Robert Jan Smeenk; Martina Kunze-Busch; Johannes C J de Boer; Jochem van der Voort van Zijp; Marco van Vulpen; Cédric Draulans; Laura van den Bergh; Sofie Isebaert; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544