A Decision Support Tool to Optimize Selection of Head and Neck Cancer Patients for Proton Therapy

SIMPLE SUMMARY: A decision support tool was developed to select head and neck cancer patients for proton therapy. The tool uses delineation data to predict expected toxicity risk reduction with proton therapy and can be used before a treatment plan is created. The positive predictive value of the tool is >90%. This tool significantly reduces delays in commencing treatment and avoid redundant photon vs. proton treatment plan comparison. ABSTRACT: Selection of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients for proton therapy (PT) using plan comparison (VMAT vs. IMPT) for each patient is labor-intensive. Our aim was to develop a decision support tool to identify patients with high probability to qualify for PT, at a very early stage (immediately after delineation) to avoid delay in treatment initiation. A total of 151 HNC patients were included, of which 106 (70%) patients qualified for PT. Linear regression models for individual OARs were created to predict the D(mean) to the OARs for VMAT and IMPT plans. The predictors were OAR volume percentages overlapping with target volumes. Then, actual and predicted plan comparison decisions were compared. Actual and predicted OAR D(mean) (VMAT R(2) = 0.953, IMPT R(2) = 0.975) and NTCP values (VMAT R(2) = 0.986, IMPT R(2) = 0.992) were highly correlated. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the decision support tool were 64%, 87%, 92% and 51%, respectively. The expected toxicity reduction with IMPT can be predicted using only the delineation data. The probability of qualifying for PT is >90% when the tool indicates a positive outcome for PT. This tool will contribute significantly to a more effective selection of HNC patients for PT at a much earlier stage, reducing treatment delay

Development of advanced preselection tools to reduce redundant plan comparisons in model-based selection of head and neck cancer patients for proton therapy

PURPOSE: In the Netherlands, head and neck cancer (HNC) patients are selected for proton therapy (PT) based on estimated normal tissue complication probability differences (ΔNTCP) between photons and protons, which requires a plan comparison (VMAT vs. IMPT). We aimed to develop tools to improve patient selection for plan comparisons. METHODS: This prospective study consisted of 141 consecutive patients in which a plan comparison was done. IMPT plans of patients not qualifying for PT were classified as 'redundant'. To prevent redundant IMPT planning, 5 methods that were primarily based on regression models were developed to predict IMPT Dmean to OARs, by using data from VMAT plans and volumetric data from delineated targets and OARs. Then, actual and predicted plan comparison outcomes were compared. The endpoint was being selected for proton therapy. RESULTS: Seventy out of 141 patients (49.6%) qualified for PT. Using the developed preselection tools, redundant IMPT planning could have been prevented in 49-68% of the remaining 71 patients not qualifying for PT (=specificity) when the sensitivity of all methods was fixed to 100%, i.e., no false negative cases (positive predictive value range: 57-68%, negative predictive value: 100%). CONCLUSION: The advanced preselection tools, which uses volume and VMAT dose data, prevented labour intensive creation of IMPT plans in up to 68% of non-qualifying patients for PT. No patients qualifying for PT would have been incorrectly denied a plan comparison. This method contributes significantly to a more cost-effective model-based selection of HNC patients for PT

Current practice in proton therapy delivery in adult cancer patients across Europe

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Major differences exist among proton therapy (PT) centres regarding PT delivery in adult cancer patient. To obtain insight into current practice in Europe, we performed a survey among European PT centres. MATERIALS AND METHODS We designed electronic questionnaires for eight tumour sites, focusing on four main topics: 1) indications and patient selection methods; 2) reimbursement; 3) on-going or planned studies, 4) annual number of patients treated with PT. RESULTS Of 22 centres, 19 (86%) responded. In total, 4233 adult patients are currently treated across Europe annually, of which 46% consists of patients with central nervous system tumours (CNS), 15% head and neck cancer (HNC), 15% prostate, 9% breast, 5% lung, 5% gastrointestinal, 4% lymphoma, 0.3% gynaecological cancers. CNS are treated in all participating centres (n = 19) using PT, HNC in 16 centres, lymphoma in 10 centres, gastrointestinal in 10 centres, breast in 7 centres, prostate in 6 centres, lung in 6 centres, and gynaecological cancers in 3 centres. Reimbursement is provided by national health care systems for the majority of commonly treated tumour sites. Approximately 74% of centres enrol patients for prospective data registration programs. Phase II-III trials are less frequent, due to reimbursement and funding problems. Reasons for not treating certain tumour types with PT are lack of evidence (30%), reimbursement issues (29%) and/or technical limitations (20%). CONCLUSION Across European PT centres, CNS tumours and HNC are the most frequently treated tumour types. Most centres use indication protocols. Lack of evidence for PT and reimbursement issues are the most reported reasons for not treating specific tumour types with PT

A Decision Support Tool to Optimize Selection of Head and Neck Cancer Patients for Proton Therapy

Selection of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients for proton therapy (PT) using plan comparison (VMAT vs. IMPT) for each patient is labor‐intensive. Our aim was to develop a decision support tool to identify patients with high probability to qualify for PT, at a very early stage (immediately after delineation) to avoid delay in treatment initiation. A total of 151 HNC patients were included, of which 106 (70%) patients qualified for PT. Linear regression models for individual OARs were created to predict the Dmean to the OARs for VMAT and IMPT plans. The predictors were OAR volume percentages overlapping with target volumes. Then, actual and predicted plan comparison decisions were compared. Actual and predicted OAR Dmean (VMAT R2 = 0.953, IMPT R2 = 0.975) and NTCP values (VMAT R2 = 0.986, IMPT R2 = 0.992) were highly correlated. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the decision support tool were 64%, 87%, 92% and 51%, respectively. The expected toxicity reduction with IMPT can be predicted using only the delineation data. The probability of qualifying for PT is &gt;90% when the tool indicates a positive outcome for PT. This tool will contribute significantly to a more effective selection of HNC patients for PT at a much earlier stage, reducing treatment delay.</p