TY - JOUR
T1 - PTCOG international survey of practice patterns and trends in utilization of proton therapy for breast cancer
AU - Choi, J Isabelle
AU - Hardy-Abeloos, Camille
AU - Lozano, Alicia
AU - Hanlon, Alexandra
AU - Vargas, Carlos
AU - Maduro, John H
AU - Bradley, Julie
AU - Offersen, Birgitte
AU - Haffty, Bruce
AU - Pankuch, Mark
AU - Amos, Richard
AU - Kim, Nalee
AU - MacDonald, Shannon M
AU - Kirova, Youlia
AU - Mutter, Robert W
N1 - © 2024 The Author(s).
PY - 2024/9
Y1 - 2024/9
N2 - PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The indications, techniques, and extent to which proton beam therapy (PBT) is employed for breast cancer are unknown. We seek to determine PBT utilization for breast cancer.MATERIALS/METHODS: The Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group (PTCOG) Breast Subcommittee developed an IRB-approved 29-question survey and sent it to breast cancer radiation oncologists at all active PBT centers worldwide in June 2023. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses, and comparisons by continent were performed using Fisher's exact tests.RESULTS: Of 79 surveys distributed, 28 recipients submitted responses (35 % response rate) representing fifteen U.S., 8 European, and 5 Asian centers (continent response rate 50 %, 38 %, and 18 %, respectively). Overall, 93 % reported treating breast cancer patients with PBT; 13 (50 %) have treated ≥100 breast cancer patients at their center since opening. Most (89 %) have pencil beam scanning technology. Nearly half (46 %) use moderate hypofractionation (15-20 fractions) for regional nodal irradiation and 42 % conventional fractionation (25-30 fractions). More European centers prefer hypofractionation (88 %) vs. Asian (50 %) and U.S. (21 %) centers (p = 0.003). Common patient selection methods were practitioner determination/patient preference (n = 16) and comparative plan evaluation (n = 15). U.S. centers reported the most experience with breast PBT, with 71 % having treated ≥100 breast cancer patients vs. 38 % in Europe and none in Asia (p = 0.001). Of respondent centers, 39 % enrolled ≥75 % of breast PBT patients on a research study.CONCLUSION: Utilization, patient selection methods, and dose-fractionation approaches for breast cancer PBT vary worldwide. These survey data serve as a benchmark from which successor surveys can provide insight on practice pattern evolution.
AB - PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The indications, techniques, and extent to which proton beam therapy (PBT) is employed for breast cancer are unknown. We seek to determine PBT utilization for breast cancer.MATERIALS/METHODS: The Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group (PTCOG) Breast Subcommittee developed an IRB-approved 29-question survey and sent it to breast cancer radiation oncologists at all active PBT centers worldwide in June 2023. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses, and comparisons by continent were performed using Fisher's exact tests.RESULTS: Of 79 surveys distributed, 28 recipients submitted responses (35 % response rate) representing fifteen U.S., 8 European, and 5 Asian centers (continent response rate 50 %, 38 %, and 18 %, respectively). Overall, 93 % reported treating breast cancer patients with PBT; 13 (50 %) have treated ≥100 breast cancer patients at their center since opening. Most (89 %) have pencil beam scanning technology. Nearly half (46 %) use moderate hypofractionation (15-20 fractions) for regional nodal irradiation and 42 % conventional fractionation (25-30 fractions). More European centers prefer hypofractionation (88 %) vs. Asian (50 %) and U.S. (21 %) centers (p = 0.003). Common patient selection methods were practitioner determination/patient preference (n = 16) and comparative plan evaluation (n = 15). U.S. centers reported the most experience with breast PBT, with 71 % having treated ≥100 breast cancer patients vs. 38 % in Europe and none in Asia (p = 0.001). Of respondent centers, 39 % enrolled ≥75 % of breast PBT patients on a research study.CONCLUSION: Utilization, patient selection methods, and dose-fractionation approaches for breast cancer PBT vary worldwide. These survey data serve as a benchmark from which successor surveys can provide insight on practice pattern evolution.
U2 - 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100847
DO - 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100847
M3 - Article
C2 - 39280125
SN - 2405-6308
VL - 48
JO - Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology
JF - Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology
M1 - 100847
ER -