The status and challenges for prostate SBRT treatments in United States proton therapy centers: An NRG Oncology practice survey
Fuente:
arXiv
Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2024
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866910476007374848 |
|---|---|
| author | Shen, Jiajian Taylor, Paige A. Vargas, Carlos E. Kang, Minglei Saini, Jatinder Zhou, Jun Wang, Peilong Liu, Wei Simone II, Charles B. Xiao, Ying Lin, Liyong |
| author_facet | Shen, Jiajian Taylor, Paige A. Vargas, Carlos E. Kang, Minglei Saini, Jatinder Zhou, Jun Wang, Peilong Liu, Wei Simone II, Charles B. Xiao, Ying Lin, Liyong |
| contents | A survey was designed to inquire about the practice of proton SBRT treatment for prostate cancer. The survey was distributed to all 30 proton therapy centers in the United States that participate in the National Clinical Trial Network in Feb. 2023. The survey focused on usage, patient selection criteria, prescriptions, target contours, dose constraints, treatment plan optimization and evaluation methods, patient-specific QA, and IGRT methods. Results: We received responses from 25 centers (83% participation). Only 8 respondent proton centers (32%) reported performing SBRT of the prostate. The remaining 17 centers cited three primary reasons for not offering this treatment: no clinical need, lack of volumetric imaging, and/or lack of clinical evidence. Only 1 center cited the reduction in overall reimbursement as a concern for not offering prostate SBRT. Several common practices among the 8 centers offering SBRT for the prostate were noted, such as using Hydrogel spacers, fiducial markers, and MRI for target delineation. Most proton centers (87.5%) utilized pencil beam scanning (PBS) delivery and completed Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) phantom credentialing. Treatment planning typically used parallel opposed lateral beams, and consistent parameters for setup and range uncertainties were used for plan optimization and robustness evaluation. Measurements-based patient-specific QA, beam delivery every other day, fiducial contours for IGRT, and total doses of 35-40 GyRBE were consistent across all centers. However, there was no consensus on the risk levels for patient selection. Conclusion: Prostate SBRT is used in about 1/3 of proton centers in the US. There was a significant consistency in practices among proton centers treating with proton SBRT. It is possible that the adoption of proton SBRT may become more common if proton SBRT is more commonly offered in clinical trials. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2402_17244 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | The status and challenges for prostate SBRT treatments in United States proton therapy centers: An NRG Oncology practice survey Shen, Jiajian Taylor, Paige A. Vargas, Carlos E. Kang, Minglei Saini, Jatinder Zhou, Jun Wang, Peilong Liu, Wei Simone II, Charles B. Xiao, Ying Lin, Liyong Medical Physics A survey was designed to inquire about the practice of proton SBRT treatment for prostate cancer. The survey was distributed to all 30 proton therapy centers in the United States that participate in the National Clinical Trial Network in Feb. 2023. The survey focused on usage, patient selection criteria, prescriptions, target contours, dose constraints, treatment plan optimization and evaluation methods, patient-specific QA, and IGRT methods. Results: We received responses from 25 centers (83% participation). Only 8 respondent proton centers (32%) reported performing SBRT of the prostate. The remaining 17 centers cited three primary reasons for not offering this treatment: no clinical need, lack of volumetric imaging, and/or lack of clinical evidence. Only 1 center cited the reduction in overall reimbursement as a concern for not offering prostate SBRT. Several common practices among the 8 centers offering SBRT for the prostate were noted, such as using Hydrogel spacers, fiducial markers, and MRI for target delineation. Most proton centers (87.5%) utilized pencil beam scanning (PBS) delivery and completed Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) phantom credentialing. Treatment planning typically used parallel opposed lateral beams, and consistent parameters for setup and range uncertainties were used for plan optimization and robustness evaluation. Measurements-based patient-specific QA, beam delivery every other day, fiducial contours for IGRT, and total doses of 35-40 GyRBE were consistent across all centers. However, there was no consensus on the risk levels for patient selection. Conclusion: Prostate SBRT is used in about 1/3 of proton centers in the US. There was a significant consistency in practices among proton centers treating with proton SBRT. It is possible that the adoption of proton SBRT may become more common if proton SBRT is more commonly offered in clinical trials. |
| title | The status and challenges for prostate SBRT treatments in United States proton therapy centers: An NRG Oncology practice survey |
| topic | Medical Physics |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.17244 |