Search

Purpose Concurrent chemoradiation plays an integral role in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Proton beam radiation therapy has the potential to spare adjacent critical organs, improving toxicity profiles and potentially improving clinical outcomes. Methods and materials We evaluated the REG001-09 registry for patients undergoing proton radiation therapy for esophageal cancer. Demographic, clinicopathologic, toxicity, and dosimetry information were compiled. Results We identified 155 patients treated at 10 institutions between 2010 and 2019. One hundred twenty (77%) had adenocarcinoma and 34 (22%) had squamous cell carcinoma. One hundred thirty-seven (88%) received concurrent chemotherapy. The median delivered dose was 50.51 Gy-equivalent (GyE; range, 41.4-70.1). Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 22 (14%) of patients and were most commonly dysphagia (6%), esophagitis (4%), anorexia (4%), and nausea (2%). There were no episodes of grade ≥4 lymphopenia and no grade 5 toxicities. The average mean heart, lung, and liver doses and average maximum spinal cord dose were 10.0 GyE, 4.8 GyE, 3.8 GyE, and 34.2 GyE, respectively. For gastroesophageal junction tumors, 8% of patients developed acute grade ≥3 toxicity and the mean heart, liver, right kidney, and left kidney doses were 10.5 GyE, 3.9 GyE, 0.4 GyE, and 4.9 GyE, respectively. Gastroesophageal junction location was protective against development of grade ≥3 toxicity on univariate (P = .0009) and multivariate (P = .004) analysis. Conclusions Proton beam radiation therapy affords excellent dosimetric parameters and low toxicity in patients with esophageal cancer treated with curative intent. Prospective trials are underway investigating the comparative benefit of proton-based therapy.

We investigated adverse events (AEs) and clinical outcomes for proton beam therapy (PBT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer. From 2012 to 2016, 82 patients received PBT in the prospective multi-institutional Proton Collaborative Group registry. AEs were recorded prospectively at each institution. Median follow-up was 8.1 months. Median dose was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Most patients received a lumpectomy bed boost (90%) and regional nodal irradiation (RNI)(83%). Six patients (7.3%) experienced grade 3 AEs (5 with dermatitis, 5 with breast pain). Body mass index (BMI) was associated with grade 3 dermatitis (P = .015). Fifty-eight patients (70.7%) experienced grade ≥2 dermatitis. PBT including RNI after BCS is well-tolerated. Elevated BMI is associated with grade 3 dermatitis.

Highlights • Benefits of proton beam therapy for treatment of prostate cancer are unknown. • Data comparing pencil beam vs. passive scatter/uniform scanning protons are limited. • Significant differences in acute toxicity between proton modalities were observed. • Future studies evaluating differences between the two proton modalities are needed., Background and purpose Patient-level benefits of proton beam therapy (PBT) relative to photon therapy for prostate cancer (PC) continue to be the focus of debate. Although trials comparing the two modalities are underway, most are being conducted using “conventional” PBT (passive scattering/uniform scanning [PS/US]) rather than pencil beam scanning (PBS). The dosimetric benefits of PBS are well-known, but comparative data are limited. This analysis compares PBS toxicity rates with those of PS/US in a prospective multicenter registry. Methods We evaluated acute/late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity rates for men with low-to-intermediate risk PC enrolled in PCG 001-09. Acute toxicities with the two techniques were compared using χ2 tests, and the cumulative incidence methods for late toxicity. Multivariable analyses (MVAs) for acute toxicity were performed using logistic regression, and cox proportional hazards models for late toxicity. Results Patients were treated using PS/US (n = 1105) or PBS (n = 238). Acute grade ≥2 GI toxicity in PBS did not significantly differ from that with PS/US (2.9% and 2.1%, respectively; P = 0.47). Acute grade ≥2 GU toxicity was significantly higher with PBS (21.9% and 15.1%; P

To investigate adverse events (AEs, CTCAE v4.0) and clinical outcomes for proton beam therapy (PBT) reirradiation (reRT) for breast cancer. From 2011 to 2016, 50 patients received PBT reRT for breast cancer in the prospective Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) registry. Acute AEs occurred within 180 days from start of reRT. Late AEs began or persisted beyond 180 days. Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests were utilized. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate overall survival (OS) and local recurrence-free survival (LFRS). Median follow-up was 12.7 months (0-41.8). Median prior RT dose was 60 Gy (10-96.7). Median reRT dose was 55.1 Gy (45.1-76.3). Median cumulative dose was 110.6 Gy (70.6-156.8). Median interval between RT courses was 103.8 months (5.5-430.8). ReRT included regional nodes in 84% (66% internal mammary node [IMN]). Surgery included the following: 44% mastectomy, 22% wide local excision, 6% lumpectomy, 2% reduction mammoplasty, and 26% no surgery. Grade 3 AEs were experienced by 16% of patients (10% acute, 8% late) and were associated with body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2 (P = 0.04), bilateral recurrence (P = 0.02), and bilateral reRT (P = 0.004). All grade 3 AEs occurred in patients receiving IMN reRT (P = 0.08). At 1 year, LRFS was 93%, and OS was 97%. Patients with gross disease at time of PBT trended toward worse 1-year LRFS (100% without vs. 84% with, P = 0.06). PBT reRT is well tolerated with favorable local control. BMI > 30, bilateral disease, and IMN reRT were associated with grade 3 AEs. Toxicity was acceptable despite median cumulative dose > 110 Gy.