Technical Brief on Particle Beam Radiotherapies for the Treatment of Cancer Slide presentation from the AHRQ 2010 conference. On September 27, 2010, Tom Trikalinos made this presentation at the 2010 Annual Conference. Select to access the PowerPoint® presentation (1.8 MB). Free PowerPoint® Viewer (Plugin Software Help).Slide 1Technical Brief on Particle Beam Radiotherapies for the Treatment of CancerT Trikalinos, T Terasawa, S Ip, G Raman, J LauTufts EPCPresenter: Tom Trikalinos, MD, PhD, Co-Director, Tufts EPC.Slide 2Introduction (I)Radiation therapy is pivotal in cancer treatmentBased on physics, there are 3 broad groups of external radiation therapy: PhotonsElectronsCharged particles (e.g., protons)Slide 3Introduction (II)Charged particle radiotherapy has been clinically available since 1954.Appropriate clinical utilization is controversial. No documented superiority over radiotherapy alternatives in comparative dataExpensiveSlide 4Technical BriefRapid report that describes:The technologyIts availability, diffusion and costType of facilities, provider trainingState-of-science: Type of studies, participants, interventions, designsNo focus on findingsSlide 5Technical Brief MethodsCombination of general Internet searches Information on the technology, the principles it operates on, its availability, uptake and cost one has to search beyond the published literatureAnd systematic scan of the published literature Describe published researchSlide 6General Internet SearchesGoogle "particle beam therapy" and "proton beam therapy"Visiting relevant links (first 10 pages)Websites of radiotherapy organizations, treatment centers, manufacturersFDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health; Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience DatabaseSlide 7Systematic literature Scan (I)MEDLINE searches to identify studies:Charged particle radiotherapy performedCancer in >80% of patientsAny clinical outcome, any harmAny design, =10 patients treated*English, German, Italian, French, JapaneseSlide 8Systematic literature Scan (II)Descriptive statistics for designs, clinical and treatment characteristics, clinical outcomes and adverse events reportedWe stratified results by cancer type (ocular, head and neck, spine, GI, prostate, bladder, uterus, bone and soft tissue, lung, breast, miscellaneous)Slide 9ResultsSlide 10Physics of Charged Particle Versus Photon RadiotherapyPhoton radiotherapyUses ionizing photon (X- or gamma-ray) beams for the locoregional treatment of diseaseRadiation damage to DNA of healthy and tumor cells alike triggers complex reactions that ultimately result in cell deathCellular damage increases with the (absorbed) radiation dose (measured in Gy)Slide 11Depth-dose Distribution of PhotonsImage: A line graph shows distribution of photons by depth (mm)/dose (%). The line begins at ~25% dose at 0 mm and rises sharply to 100% at 20-30 mm, then declines steadily to ~50% at 200 mm.Slide 12Particle Beam RadiotherapyUses charged particles (e.g., protons, helium ions, carbon ions)Charged particles deposit most of their energy in the last millimeters of their trajectory (when their speed slows).Sharp localized peak of dose (Bragg peak).Slide 13Image: A line graph shows the pristine Bragg peak (I). The line begins at ~22% dose at 0 mm and rises slowly at first, to ~25% at 50 mm and ~30% at 100 mm, then rises sharply to peak at ~90% at 150 mm before immediately dropping to 0 just beyond 150 mm.Slide 14A Pristine Bragg Peak (II)Image: A line graph shows the pristine Bragg peak (II). There are two lines on this graph. The first line (in grey) begins at ~22% dose at 0 mm and rises slowly at first, to ~25% at 50 mm and ~30% at 100 mm, then rises sharply to peak at ~90% at 150 mm before immediately dropping to 0 just beyond 150 mm. The second line (in blue) begins at ~19% dose at 0 mm and rises slowly at first, to ~20% at 50 mm and ~22% at 100 mm, then rises sharply to peak just above ~60% at 150 mm before immediately dropping to 0 just beyond 150 mm. Both lines end at the same point just beyond 150 mm.Slide 15A Pristine Bragg Peak (III)Image: A line graph shows the pristine Bragg peak (III). There are two lines on this graph. The first line (in grey) begins at ~22% dose at 0 mm and rises slowly at first, to ~25% at 50 mm and ~30% at 100 mm, then rises sharply to peak at ~90% at 150 mm before immediately dropping to 0 just beyond 150 mm. The second line (in blue) begins at ~30% dose at 0 mm and rises to ~40% at 50 mm and then peaks sharply at ~90% at ~80 mm before dropping to ~10% at 100 mm.Slide 16Multiple Bragg PeaksImage: A line graph shows the Multiple Bragg peak. There are two lines on this graph, both in blue. The first line begins at ~22% dose at 0 mm and rises slowly at first, to ~25% at 50 mm and ~30% at 100 mm, then rises sharply to peak at ~90% at 150 mm before immediately dropping to 0 just beyond 150 mm. The second line begins at ~7% dose at 0 mm and rises to ~10% at 50 mm and 12% at 100 mm, then peaks sharply at ~22% at ~130 mm before dropping to ~0% at 150 mm.Slide 17Spread-out Bragg Peak (SOBP)Image: A line graph shows the Spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) peak. There are five lines on this graph. The first line, in red, begins at ~42% dose at 0 mm and rises to ~50% at 50 mm and ~60% at 100 mm, then rises sharply to peak at ~100% at 120 mm; this line remains near 100% with some minor fluctuations until 150 mm, then drops to 0 just beyond 150 mm. The second line (in blue) begins at ~22% dose at 0 mm and rises slowly at first, to ~25% at 50 mm and ~30% at 100 mm, then rises sharply to peak at ~90% at 150 mm before immediately dropping to 0 just beyond 150 mm. These two lines end at the same point just beyond 150 mm.The third line, also in blue, begins at ~10% dose at 0 mm and rises slightly to ~12% at 50 mm and 15% at 100 mm, then peaks at ~25% at ~140 mm before dropping to ~0% at 150 mm. The fourth line, also in blue, begins at ~9% dose at 0 mm and rises slightly to ~10% at 50 mm and 12% at 100 mm, then peaks at ~22% at ~130 mm before dropping to ~0% at 140 mm. The fifth line, also in blue, begins at ~5% dose at 0 mm and rises slightly to ~7% at 50 mm and 9% at 100 mm, then peaks at ~18% at ~125 mm before dropping to ~0% at 130 mm.Slide 18Spread-out Bragg Peak (SOBP)Image: A line graph shows the Spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) peak. There are 13 lines on this graph. The first line, in red, begins at ~75% dose at 0 mm and rises to ~80% at 50 mm, then rises to peak at ~100% at 100 mm; this line remains near 100% with some minor fluctuations until 150 mm, then drops to 0 just beyond 150 mm. The second line (in blue) begins at ~22% dose at 0 mm and rises slowly at first, to ~25% at 50 mm and ~30% at 100 mm, then rises sharply to peak at ~90% at 150 mm before immediately dropping to 0 just beyond 150 mm. These two lines end at the same point just beyond 150 mm.The third line, also in blue, begins at ~10% dose at 0 mm and rises slightly to ~12% at 50 mm and 15% at 100 mm, then peaks at ~25% at ~140 mm before dropping to ~0% at 150 mm. The fourth line, also in blue, begins at ~9% dose at 0 mm and rises slightly to ~10% at 50 mm and 12% at 100 mm, then peaks at ~22% at ~130 mm before dropping to ~0% at 140 mm. The fifth line, also in blue, begins at ~5% dose at 0 mm and rises slightly to ~7% at 50 mm and 9% at 100 mm, then peaks at ~18% at ~125 mm before dropping to ~0% at 130 mm.Lines 6 through 13 are in blue; all begin at ~3-4% dose at 0 mm rise to ~5% at 50 mm, then begin to diverge. The sixth line peaks at ~15% at ~120 mm and drops to 0 at 125 mm. The seventh line peaks at ~12% at ~110 mm and drops to 0 at 120 mm. The eighth line peaks at ~10% ~100 mm and drops to 0 at 110 mm. The ninth line peaks at ~9% at ~90 mm and drops to 0 just beyond 100 mm. The tenth line peaks at ~8% at ~85 mm and drops to 0 just below 100 mm. The eleventh line peaks at ~8% at ~80 mm and drops to 0 at ~90 mm. The twelfth line peaks at ~8% at ~70 mm and drops to 0 at ~80 mm. The eleventh line peaks at ~8% at ~60 mm and drops to 0 at ~70 mm.Slide 19Photons vs SOBPImage: A line graph compares photons versus SOBP. The photon line, in black, begins at ~25% dose at 0 mm and rises sharply to 100% at 20-30 mm, then declines steadily to ~50% at 200 mm. The SOBP line, in red, begins at ~75% dose at 0 mm and rises to ~80% at 50 mm, then rises to peak at ~100% at 100 mm; this line remains near 100% with some minor fluctuations until 150 mm, then drops to 0 just beyond 150 mm.Slide 20Large FacilitiesImages: An architectural model and the University of Pennsylvania (Perelman center for Advanced Medicine) under construction are shown.January 2007Slide 21Practical Information (I)Operating particle beam facilities in the US (2008)InstituteParticleMaximum Clinical Energy (MeV)StartPatients treatedNumberDate of countLLU, CAproton250199011414Nov-06MPRI, INproton2001993379Dec-07UCSF, CAproton601994920Mar-07NPTC-MGH, MAproton23520012710Oct-07MD Anderson, TXproton2502006527Dec-07FPTI, FLproton2302006360Dec-07Slide 22Practical Information (II)Large particle beam facilities being planned/constructed in the U.S. (2008)InstituteNow in constructionParticleMaximum Clinical Energy (MeV)[Accelerator]Treatment roomsGantriesCost(million $)Estimated start dateUniversity of Pennsylvania, PAYesproton230 [Cyclotron]541402009Hampton University, VAYesproton[?]542252010Northern Illinois Proton Treatment and Research Center, ILNoproton250 [?]42 or 31592010Slide 23Evidence MapsImage: A chart maps evidence studies into the following categories:All Identified StudiesTopic AreaRandomized controlled trials(RCT)Nonrandomized comparative studies(nonRCT)Single-group studiesOSCSSOtherOSCSSOtherOSCSSOtherOcular124427343373Head/neck112111433053Spine 839GI1 11 2151118Prostate3131 25414Bladder 333Uterus 1434Bone/soft tissue 535Lung 13917Breast 111Other 7513Slide 24Evidence MapsImage: A chart maps evidence studies by university:Topic AreaMGH-USUCSF-USLLU-USMD Anderson-USNIRS-JapTsukuba-JapHyoga-JapShizuoka-JapNCC-JapNice-FrOrsay-FrHMI-GerGSI-GerClatterbridge-UKPSI-SwiUppsala-SweCATANA-ItITEP-RusOcular3322 2 7112 54121Head/neck1556154 1 754 1 Spine43 1 1 GI 51 13 2 Prostate5 7 4 1 1 Bladder 3 Uterus 32 Bone/soft tissue11 2 2 Lung 4 74 1 Breast1 1 Other33 16 1 Slide 25Evidence Maps: Comparative StudiesImage: A chart maps comparative studies by university:Topic AreaMGH-USUCSF-USLLU-USMD Anderson-USNIRS-JapTsukuba-JapHyoga-JapShizuoka-JapNCC-JapNice-FrOrsay-FrHMI-GerGSI-GerClatterbridge-UKPSI-SwiUppsala-SweCATANA-ItITEP-RusOcular1 RCT2 nonRCT2 RCT3 nonRCT 1 RCT1 nonRCT 1 nonRCT Head/neck1 RCT1 RCT 1 nonRCT Spine GI 1 RCT2 nonRCT Prostate2 RCT1 nonRCT 1 RCT1 nonRCT Bladder Uterus 1 nonRCT Bone/soft tissue Lung Breast Other Slide 26Evidence Maps: ComparatorsComparisonRCTs(n=10)Nonrandomized comparative(n=13)ExampleParticles vs particles41Higher vs lower proton dose for uveal melanomaParticles only vs other Tx38Carbon-ion vsphoton + brachytherapy for uterine cancerTx with particles vs other Tx without particles34Photon RT + proton boost vsphoton RT + photon boost for prostate cancerSlide 27Discussion (I)The theoretical advantages of charged particle irradiation have not been demonstrated in comparative studies Claims of "higher effectiveness" [vs what? In whom?]Claims of "less toxicity" [vs what? In whom?]Slide 28Discussion (II)Some authorities see no need for RCTs.Superior dose distributions with charged particles vs photonsThe biological effects of e.g. protons are similar to those of photons, and thus knownIt is self evident that precise localization of dose is beneficialThis is a scarce (limited) resource. Use it in an optimal way (may not include RCTs)Slide 29Discussion (III)Even strong pathophysiological rationale can misleadMany instances of clinical equipoise between charged particle radiation and other modalities, in rare and common cancersAre any differences large enough to justify routine use?Slide 30Discussion (IV)For rare tumors near anatomically critical structures where extreme precision is sine qua non, relevant comparators are Intensity modulated radiation therapyConformal radiation surgerySlide 31Discussion (V)For common cancers where "extreme" precision is currently not a mandate, relevant comparators are practically all currently used radiation modalitiesSlide 32Recommendations for Future ResearchCapitalize on existing data Reanalysis of existing individual patient data with optimal statistical methodsGenerate comparative data, first for common cancers Evaluate patient-relevant outcomesRCTsConditional coverage with evidence development?Slide 33Parting PointsTradeoff: high cost and limited availability against unclear effectiveness compared with contemporary alternatives Cost-effectiveness (-utility) RCTs?Is pathophysiology and physics sufficient to justify diffusion to common cancers? Antiarrhythmics for premature ventricular contractionsErythropoetin for anemia in chronic kidney diseaseSlide 34Hidden SlidesSlide 35What Does The Result Look Like?Slide 36Background on Photon and Particle Beam RadiotherapySlide 37Comparators in RCTsCancer type and centerComparisonNSurvival[Overall/ specific]Ocular (uveal melanoma) MGH (USA)Higher vs lower dose proton RT188No/NoUCSF (USA)Helium RT vs I-125 brachytherapy136; 184Yes/YesOrsay (France)Proton RT vs proton RT + laser TTT151Yes/YesHead/neck (skull base chordoma/chondrosarcoma) MGH (USA)Higher vs lower dose proton RT96Yes/NoHead/neck (brain glioblastoma) UCSF (USA)Higher vs lower dose proton RT15Yes/YesGI (pancreatic cancer) UCSF (USA)Helium RT vs photon RT49Yes/YesProstate MGH & LLU (USA)Photon RT + standard dose proton vs Photon RT + high dose proton393Yes/YesMGH (USA)Photon RT + local photon boost vs Photon RT + local proton boost202; 191Yes/YesGI: Gastrointestinal; RT: radiotherapy; TTT: transpupillary thermotherapySlide 38Cancer type and centerComparisonNSurvival[Overall/ specific]Ocular (uveal melanoma) Orsay (France) 34Proton RT vs I-125 brachytherapy1272Yes/NoUCSF (USA)35Helium RT vs I-125 brachytherapy766No/NoMGH (USA)36Proton RT vs enucleation556Yes/YesUCSF (USA)33Helium RT vs I-125 brachytherapy426No/No[Wilson 1999—Unclear center]45Proton RT vs I-125 brachytherapy vs Ru-106 brachytherapy267Yes/NoMGH (USA)44Proton RT vs enucleation120Yes/YesUCSF (USA)37Proton RT vs proton RT + laser TTT56No/NoHead/neck (skull base adenocystic carcinoma) HMI (Germany)43SFRT/IMRT vs SFRT/IMRT + proton boost63Yes/YesSlide 39Uterus NIRS (Japan)Carbon RT vs photon RT + brachytherapy49No/NoGI (Bile duct) UCSF (USA)55Proton RT vs photon RT62Yes/YesUCSF (USA)42Surgery + photon RT vs Surgery + proton RT22No/NoProstate LLU (USA)39Watchful waiting vs surgery vs standalone photon RT vs photon RT + proton boost RT vs standalone proton RT 185No/NoMGH (USA)38photon RT + photon boost vs photon RT + proton boost180Yes/YesSlide 40Technical BriefAHRQ has asked Tufts EPC to perform a Technical Brief on the role of particle beam radiotherapies in the treatment of cancer conditions.A Technical Brief is a rapid report on an emerging clinical intervention that provides an overview of key issues. Technical Briefs generally focus on interventions for which there are limited published data and too few completed protocol-driven studies to support definitive conclusions.Slide 41Key Question 11.a. What are the different particle beam radiation therapies that have been proposed to be used on cancer?1.b. What are the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of these therapies compared to other radiation therapies that are currently used for cancer treatment?1.c. What are the potential safety issues and harms of the use of particle beam radiation therapy?Slide 42Key Question 22.a. What instrumentation is needed for particle beam radiation and what is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) status of this instrumentation?2.b. What is an estimate of the number of hospitals that currently have the instrumentation or are planning to build instrumentation for these therapies in the USA?2.c. What instrumentation technologies are in development?Slide 43Key Question 3Perform a systematic literature scan on studies on the use and safety of these therapies in cancer, with a synthesis of the following variables:3.a. Type of cancer and patient eligibility criteria3.b. Type of radiation, instrumentation and algorithms used3.c. Study design and size3.d. Comparator used in comparative studies.3.e. Length of followup3.f. Concurrent or prior treatments3.g. Outcomes measured3.h. Adverse events, harms and safety issues reported Slide 44Schematic of a Proton Beam Radiotherapy CenterImage: An image of a Schematic of a proton beam radiotherapy center is shown. Labeled on the image are the following:Ion sourceAccelerator (cyclotron)Rotational gantriesBeam transportation componentsFixed beamAudrey Mahoney, Tufts MC EPCSlide 45Evidence MapsCancer typeSingle armRCTsNonrandomized comparativeTotalOcular804791Head/neck532156Spine9009GI181221Prostate143219Bladder3003Uterus4015Bone/soft tissue6006Lung170017Breast2002Miscellaneous140014 Current as of December 2010 Internet Citation: Technical Brief on Particle Beam Radiotherapies for the Treatment of Cancer. December 2010. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/news/events/conference/2010/trikalinos/index.html