Proton beam therapy (PBT) is one of the most advanced radiotherapy technologies, with growing evidence to support its use in specific clinical scenarios and exponential growth of demand and capacity worldwide over the past few decades. However, geographical inequalities persist in the distribution of PBT centres, which translate into variations in access and use of this technology. The aim of this work was to look at the factors that contribute to these inequalities, to help raise awareness among stakeholders, governments and policy makers. A literature search was conducted using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) criteria. The same search strategy was run in Embase and Medline and identified 242 records, which were screened for manual review. Of these, 24 were deemed relevant and were included in this analysis. Most of the 24 publications included in this review originated from the USA (22/24) and involved paediatric patients, teenagers and young adults (61% for children and/or teenagers and young adults versus 39% for adults). The most reported indicator of disparity was socioeconomic status (16/24), followed by geographical location (13/24). All the studies evaluated in this review showed disparities in the access to PBT. As paediatric patients make up a significant proportion of the PBT-eligible patients, equity of access to PBT also raises ethical considerations. Therefore, further research is needed into the equity of access to PBT to reduce the care gap.

Objectives: High-energy Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) commenced in England in 2018 and NHS England commissions PBT for 1.5% of patients receiving radical radiotherapy. We sought expert opinion on the level of provision. Methods: Invitations were sent to 41 colleagues working in PBT, most at one UK centre, to contribute by completing a spreadsheet. 39 responded: 23 (59%) completed the spreadsheet; 16 (41%) declined, arguing that clinical outcome data are lacking, but joined six additional site-specialist oncologists for two consensus meetings. The spreadsheet was pre-populated with incidence data from Cancer Research UK and radiotherapy use data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. ‘Mechanisms of Benefit’ of reduced growth impairment, reduced toxicity, dose escalation and reduced second cancer risk were examined. Results: The most reliable figure for percentage of radical radiotherapy patients likely to benefit from PBT was that agreed by 95% of the 23 respondents at 4.3%, slightly larger than current provision. The median was 15% (range 4–92%) and consensus median 13%. The biggest estimated potential benefit was from reducing toxicity, median benefit to 15% (range 4–92%), followed by dose escalation median 3% (range 0 to 47%); consensus values were 12 and 3%. Reduced growth impairment and reduced second cancer risk were calculated to benefit 0.5% and 0.1%. Conclusions: The most secure estimate of percentage benefit was 4.3% but insufficient clinical outcome data exist for confident estimates. The study supports the NHS approach of using the evidence base and developing it through randomised trials, non-randomised studies and outcomes tracking. Advances in knowledge: Less is known about the percentage of patients who may benefit from PBT than is generally acknowledged. Expert opinion varies widely. Insufficient clinical outcome data exist to provide robust estimates. Considerable further work is needed to address this, including international collaboration; much is already underway but will take time to provide mature data.

In 2008, the UK National Health Service started the Proton Overseas Programme (POP), to provide access for proton beam therapy (PBT) abroad for selected tumour diagnoses while two national centres were being planned. The clinical outcomes for the patient group treated for central nervous system (CNS), base of skull, spinal and paraspinal malignancies are reported here. Since the start of the POP, an agreement between the National Health Service and UK referring centres ensured outcomes data collection, including overall survival, local tumour control and late toxicity data. Clinical and treatment-related data were extracted from this national patient database. Grade ≥3 late toxicities were reported following Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.0 definition, occurring later than 90 days since the completion of treatment. Between 2008 and September 2020, 830 patients were treated within the POP for the above listed malignancies. Overall survival data were available for 815 patients and local control data for 726 patients. Toxicity analysis was carried out on 702 patients, with patients excluded due to short follow-up (<90 days) and/or inadequate toxicity data available. After a median follow-up of 3.34 years (0.06-11.58), the overall survival was 91.2%. The local control rate was 85.9% after a median follow-up of 2.81 years (range 0.04-11.58). The overall grade ≥3 late toxicity incidence was 11.97%, after a median follow-up of 1.72 years (0.04-8.45). The median radiotherapy prescription dose was 54 GyRBE (34.8-79.2). The results of this study indicate the safety of PBT for CNS tumours. Preliminary clinical outcomes following PBT for paediatric/teen and young adult and adult CNS tumours treated within the POP are encouraging, which reflects accurate patient selection and treatment quality. The rate of late effects compares favourably with published cohorts. Clinical outcomes from this patient cohort will be compared with those of UK-treated patients since the start of the national PBT service in 2018.