To report clinical outcomes in patients treated with image guided proton therapy (PT) for localized prostate cancer. The medical records of 1327 men were reviewed. Each man was enrolled on an outcomes tracking study. Dual enrollment on a prospective clinical trial was allowed. Each patient was treated for localized prostate cancer with PT at our institution between 2006 and 2010. Ninety-eight percent of patients received 78 Gy (radiobiological equivalent [RBE]) or higher; 18% received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The 5-year freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP), distant metastasis-free survival, and cause-specific survival rates are reported for each risk group. Data on patient-reported quality of life and high-grade toxicities were prospectively collected and reported. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify clinical predictors of biochemical failure and urologic toxicity. The median follow-up time was 5.5 years. The 5-year FFBP rates were 99%, 94%, and 74% in low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively. The actuarial 5-year rates of late grade 3+ Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity were 0.6% and 2.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed a significant correlation between grade 3+ GU toxicity and pretreatment prostate reductive procedures (P<.0001), prostate volume (P=.0085), pretreatment α-blockers (P=.0067), diabetes (P=.0195), and dose-volume histogram parameters (P=.0208). The median International Prostate Symptom Scores pretreatment scores and scores at 5 years after treatment were 7 and 7, respectively. The mean Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) scores significantly declined for sexual summary for patients not receiving ADT (from 67 to 53) between baseline and 5 years. Image guided PT provided excellent biochemical control rates for patients with localized prostate cancer. The actuarial rates of high-grade toxicity were low after PT. From pretreatment to 5 years of follow-up, a significant decline was found only in mean EPIC sexual summary scores. Prospective clinical studies are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness of PT and other radiation treatment strategies.

Proton therapy is a promising but controversial treatment in the management of prostate cancer. Despite its dosimetric advantages when compared with photon radiation therapy, its increased cost to patients and insurers has raised questions regarding its value. Multiple prospective and retrospective studies have been published documenting the efficacy and safety of proton therapy for patients with localized prostate cancer and for patients requiring adjuvant or salvage pelvic radiation after surgery. The Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group (PTCOG) Genitourinary Subcommittee intends to address current proton therapy indications, advantages, disadvantages, and cost effectiveness. We will also discuss the current landscape of clinical trials. This consensus report can be used to guide clinical practice and research directions.

Purpose: To investigate the feasibility of using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-derived synthetic CTs to monitor the daily dose and trigger a plan review for adaptive proton therapy (APT) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. Methods: For 84 HNC patients treated with proton pencil-beam scanning (PBS), same-day CBCT and verification CT (vfCT) pairs were retrospectively collected. The ground truth CT (gtCT) was created by deforming the vfCT to the same-day CBCT, and it was then used as a dosimetric baseline and for establishing plan review trigger recommendations. Two different synthetic CT algorithms were tested; the corrected CBCT (corrCBCT) was created using an iterative image correction method and the virtual CT (virtCT) was created by deforming the planning CT to the CBCT, followed by a low-density masking process. Clinical treatment plans were recalculated on the image sets for evaluation. Results: Plan review trigger criteria for adaptive therapy were established after closely reviewing the cohort data. Compared to the vfCT, the corrCBCT and virtCT reliably produced dosimetric data more similar to the gtCT. The average discrepancy in D99 for high-risk clinical target volumes (CTV) was 1.1%, 0.7%, and 0.4% and for standard-risk CTVs was 1.8%, 0.5%, and 0.5% for the vfCT, corrCBCT, and virtCT, respectively. Conclusion: Streamlined APT has been achieved with the proposed plan review criteria and CBCT-based synthetic CT workflow.

To report our experience with the delivery of passively scattered proton therapy in the management of nonmelanoma skin cancers with clinical perineural invasion. We reviewed the medical records of patients who received definitive or postoperative proton therapy for nonmelanoma skin cancer with clinical perineural invasion at our institution and updated patient follow-up when possible. All patients were treated with curative intent with or without the delivery of concurrent systemic therapy. We report disease control rates and the rates of late toxicity among this cohort. Twenty-six patients treated between 2008 and 2017 were included in the analysis. Following proton therapy, the 3-year overall, cause-specific, and disease-free survival rates were 59%, 73%, and 60%, respectively. The 3-year local control, local regional control, and distant metastasis-free survival rates were 80%, 65%, and 96%, respectively. On univariate analysis, surgical resection before radiation therapy significantly improved local regional control rates at 3 years (55% versus 86%; P = .04). Grade 3+ late toxicities occurred in 13 patients (50%) and the most common toxicities included grade 3+ keratitis of the ipsilateral eye, which occurred in 4 patients (15%) and grade 3+ brain necrosis in 4 patients (15%). Proton therapy is effective in the management of nonmelanoma skin cancer with clinical perineural invasion. Although disease control and complication rates compare favorably to those previously published for photon-based radiation therapy, the risk for late toxicity is significant and patients should be appropriately counseled.

Background/Objectives: Traditionally, proton therapy assumes a fixed relative biological effectiveness (RBE) value of 1.1, which can lead to inaccurate dose calculations in treatment planning. This study examines the effect of dynamic arc delivery and pencil beam scanning (PBS) linear energy transfer (LET) optimization on LET-dependent RBE dose escalation to nervous tissue structures in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients undergoing proton beam therapy, utilizing two RBE dose models. Methods: Fifteen head and neck cancer patients previously treated with PBS proton therapy at high risk of nervous tissue toxicity were retrospectively analyzed. Three plans were developed for each patient: PBS, dynamic arc, and PBS with LET optimization. RBE-weighted dose distributions were calculated and compared for all patient plans using a linear LET-weighted model and a tissue-specific α/β-dependent model. LET-dose (LET_d) constraints were systematically tested to determine optimal values for plan quality and efficacy in altering LET spatial distribution in regions of concern. LET-dependent RBE enhancement was calculated for the three different planning methods. Results: Dynamic arc plans increased RBE enhancement when compared to PBS, while LET optimization for PBS consistently reduced RBE-enhanced dose to nervous tissue compared to non-optimized plans for both RBE models. Patient-specific variability in optimization benefit was observed, with the most significant improvements in cases with greater initial RBE enhancement. A maximum LET_d constraint of 2.5 µm/keV above 80% of the maximum structure dose threshold was found to balance plan quality and RBE mitigation. Conclusions: Dynamic arc delivery increased RBE enhancement relative to static PBS. LET optimization successfully modified LET_d spatial distributions to minimize RBE enhancement to nervous tissue structures when compared to non-LET optimized PBS and dynamic arc plans. Patient-specific risk stratification should be used when clinically deploying LET optimization.

Proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer has been a subject of controversy over the past two decades. Because of its dosimetric advantages when compared to conventional radiation, PT has the potential to improve the therapeutic ratio in the management of prostate cancer by decreasing toxicity and improving disease control. Nevertheless, its higher costs and the current lack of level I evidence documenting improved clinical outcomes have led some to question its cost-effectiveness. A number of new PT centers have been built over the past decade, leading many stakeholders, including patients, physicians, and insurers, to demand comparative effectiveness data to support its current use. In this review, we summarize the results of recently published studies that support the safety and efficacy of PT in the treatment of prostate cancer. We also review the available cost-effectiveness data for PT and discuss the future of PT, including the current randomized trial comparing PT to intensity-modulated radiation therapy and the need for additional research that may help to establish the relative benefit of PT when compared to photon-based radiation therapy.