Literature DB >> 36160180

A Review of Proton Therapy - Current Status and Future Directions.

Radhe Mohan1.   

Abstract

The original rationale for proton therapy was the highly conformal depth-dose distributions that protons are able to produce, compared to photons, which allow greater sparing of normal tissues and escalation of tumor doses, thus potentially improving outcomes. Additionally, recent research, which is still ongoing, has revealed previously unrecognized advantages of proton therapy. For instance, the higher relative biological effectiveness (RBE) near the end of the proton range can be exploited to increase the difference in biologically effective dose in tumors vs. normal tissues. Moreover, the smaller "dose bath", i.e., the compact nature of proton dose distributions has been found to reduce exposure of circulating lymphocytes and the immune organs at risk. There is emerging evidence that the resulting sparing of the immune system has the potential to improve outcomes. Protons, accelerated to therapeutic energies ranging from 70 to 250 MeV, are transported to the treatment room where they enter the treatment head mounted on a rotating gantry. The initially narrow beams of protons are spread laterally and longitudinally and shaped appropriately to deliver treatments. Spreading and shaping can be achieved by electro-mechanically for "passively-scattered proton therapy' (PSPT); or using magnetic scanning of thin "beamlets" of protons of a sequence of initial energies. The latter technique is used to treat patients with optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), the most powerful proton therapy modality, which is rapidly supplanting PSPT. Treatment planning and plan evaluation for proton therapy require different techniques compared to photon therapy due, in part, to the greater vulnerability of protons to uncertainties, especially those introduced by inter- and intra-fractional variations in anatomy. In addition to anatomic variations, other sources of uncertainty in the treatments delivered include the approximations and assumptions of models used for computing dose distributions and the current practice of proton therapy of assuming the RBE to have a constant value of 1.1. In reality, the RBE is variable and a complex function of proton energy, dose per fraction, tissue and cell type, end point, etc. Despite the high theoretical potential of proton therapy, the clinical evidence supporting its broad use has so far been mixed. The uncertainties and approximations mentioned above, and the technological limitations of proton therapy may have diminished its true clinical potential. It is generally acknowledged that proton therapy is safe, effective and recommended for many types of pediatric cancers, ocular melanomas, chordomas and chondrosarcomas. Promising results have been and continue to be reported for many other types of cancers as well; however, they are based on small studies. At the same time, there have been reports of unforeseen toxicities. Furthermore, because of the high cost of establishing and operating proton therapy centers, questions are often raised about the value of proton therapy. The general consensus is that there is a need for continued improvement in the state of the art of proton therapy. There is also a need to conduct randomized trials and/or collect outcomes data in multi-institutional registries to generate high level evidence of the advantages of protons. Fortuitously, such efforts are taking currently place. Ongoing research is aimed at better understanding the biological and immunomodulatory effects of proton therapy and the consequences of the physical uncertainties on proton therapy and reducing them through image-guidance and adaptive radiotherapy. Since residual uncertainties will remain despite our best efforts, in order to increase the resilience of dose distributions in the face of uncertainties and improve our confidence in dose distributions seen on treatment plans, robust optimization techniques are being developed and implemented and continue to be perfected. Such research and continuing technological advancements in planning and delivery methods are likely to help demonstrate the superiority of protons.

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 36160180      PMCID: PMC9499036          DOI: 10.1002/pro6.1149

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Precis Radiat Oncol        ISSN: 2398-7324


  112 in total

Review 1.  Comparative costs of advanced proton and photon radiation therapies: lessons from time-driven activity-based costing in head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Nikhil G Thaker; Steven J Frank; Thomas W Feeley
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 1.744

2.  Imaging Changes in Pediatric Intracranial Ependymoma Patients Treated With Proton Beam Radiation Therapy Compared to Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy.

Authors:  Jillian R Gunther; Mariko Sato; Murali Chintagumpala; Leena Ketonen; Jeremy Y Jones; Pamela K Allen; Arnold C Paulino; M Fatih Okcu; Jack M Su; Jeffrey Weinberg; Nicholas S Boehling; Soumen Khatua; Adekunle Adesina; Robert Dauser; William E Whitehead; Anita Mahajan
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  Outcomes and acute toxicities of proton therapy for pediatric atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor of the central nervous system.

Authors:  Susan L McGovern; M Fatih Okcu; Mark F Munsell; Nancy Kumbalasseriyil; David R Grosshans; Mary F McAleer; Murali Chintagumpala; Soumen Khatua; Anita Mahajan
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2014-10-11       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Bayesian Adaptive Randomization Trial of Passive Scattering Proton Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Photon Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Zhongxing Liao; J Jack Lee; Ritsuko Komaki; Daniel R Gomez; Michael S O'Reilly; Frank V Fossella; George R Blumenschein; John V Heymach; Ara A Vaporciyan; Stephen G Swisher; Pamela K Allen; Noah Chan Choi; Thomas F DeLaney; Stephen M Hahn; James D Cox; Charles S Lu; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-01-02       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Lymphocyte Nadir and Esophageal Cancer Survival Outcomes After Chemoradiation Therapy.

Authors:  Rajayogesh Davuluri; Wen Jiang; Penny Fang; Cai Xu; Ritsuko Komaki; Daniel R Gomez; James Welsh; James D Cox; Christopher H Crane; Charles C Hsu; Steven H Lin
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  Reoptimization of Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Plans Based on Linear Energy Transfer.

Authors:  Jan Unkelbach; Pablo Botas; Drosoula Giantsoudi; Bram L Gorissen; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Model-Based Selection for Proton Therapy in Breast Cancer: Development of the National Indication Protocol for Proton Therapy and First Clinical Experiences.

Authors:  L J Boersma; M G A Sattler; J H Maduro; N Bijker; M Essers; C M J van Gestel; Y L B Klaver; A L Petoukhova; M F Rodrigues; N S Russell; A van der Schaaf; K Verhoeven; M van Vulpen; E Schuit; J A Langendijk
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 4.126

8.  Lymphocyte counts independently predict overall survival in advanced cancer patients: a biomarker for IL-2 immunotherapy.

Authors:  Luca A Fumagalli; Jan Vinke; Wilco Hoff; Ellen Ypma; Ferdinando Brivio; Angelo Nespoli
Journal:  J Immunother       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.456

9.  Improved beam angle arrangement in intensity modulated proton therapy treatment planning for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Wenhua Cao; Gino J Lim; Yupeng Li; X Ronald Zhu; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2015-03-30       Impact factor: 6.639

10.  Brain Necrosis in Adult Patients After Proton Therapy: Is There Evidence for Dependency on Linear Energy Transfer?

Authors:  Andrzej Niemierko; Jan Schuemann; Maximilian Niyazi; Drosoula Giantsoudi; Genevieve Maquilan; Helen A Shih; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 8.013

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.