Comparative Effectiveness of Proton vs Photon Therapy as Part of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cancer

Brian C. Baumann, Nandita Mitra, Joanna G. Harton, Ying Xiao, Andrzej P. Wojcieszynski, Peter E. Gabriel, Haoyu Zhong, Huaizhi Geng, Abigail Doucette, Jenny Wei, Peter J. O'Dwyer, Justin E. Bekelman, James M. Metz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations

Abstract

Importance: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard-of-care curative treatment for many cancers but is associated with substantial morbidity. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy administered with proton therapy might reduce toxicity and achieve comparable cancer control outcomes compared with conventional photon radiotherapy by reducing the radiation dose to normal tissues. Objective: To assess whether proton therapy in the setting of concurrent chemoradiotherapy is associated with fewer 90-day unplanned hospitalizations (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4 [CTCAEv4], grade ≥3) or other adverse events and similar disease-free and overall survival compared with concurrent photon therapy and chemoradiotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, nonrandomized comparative effectiveness study included 1483 adult patients with nonmetastatic, locally advanced cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy with curative intent from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2016, at a large academic health system. Three hundred ninety-one patients received proton therapy and 1092, photon therapy. Data were analyzed from October 15, 2018, through February 1, 2019. Interventions: Proton vs photon chemoradiotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was 90-day adverse events associated with unplanned hospitalizations (CTCAEv4 grade ≥3). Secondary end points included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status decline during treatment, 90-day adverse events of at least CTCAEv4 grade 2 that limit instrumental activities of daily living, and disease-free and overall survival. Data on adverse events and survival were gathered prospectively. Modified Poisson regression models with inverse propensity score weighting were used to model adverse event outcomes, and Cox proportional hazards regression models with weighting were used for survival outcomes. Propensity scores were estimated using an ensemble machine-learning approach. Results: Among the 1483 patients included in the analysis (935 men [63.0%]; median age, 62 [range, 18-93] years), those receiving proton therapy were significantly older (median age, 66 [range, 18-93] vs 61 [range, 19-91] years; P <.01), had less favorable Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores (median, 3.0 vs 2.0; P <.01), and had lower integral radiation dose to tissues outside the target (mean [SD] volume, 14.1 [6.4] vs 19.1 [10.6] cGy/cc × 107; P <.01). Baseline grade ≥2 toxicity (22% vs 24%; P =.37) and ECOG performance status (mean [SD], 0.62 [0.74] vs 0.68 [0.80]; P =.16) were similar between the 2 cohorts. In propensity score weighted-analyses, proton chemoradiotherapy was associated with a significantly lower relative risk of 90-day adverse events of at least grade 3 (0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66; P =.002), 90-day adverse events of at least grade 2 (0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93; P =.006), and decline in performance status during treatment (0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.71; P <.001). There was no difference in disease-free or overall survival. Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis, proton chemoradiotherapy was associated with significantly reduced acute adverse events that caused unplanned hospitalizations, with similar disease-free and overall survival. Prospective trials are warranted to validate these results.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)237-246
Number of pages10
JournalJAMA oncology
Volume6
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2020

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparative Effectiveness of Proton vs Photon Therapy as Part of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this