Why are not all paediatric cancer patients treated with protons? A population-based report from Sweden, 2016-2023.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Anna Asklid, Ingrid Kristensen, Ulla Martinsson, Martin Nilsson, Malin Blomstrand, Måns Agrup, Anna Flejmer, Anna-Maja Svärd, Charlotta Fröjd, Erik Almhagen, Jacob Engellau, Anna Embring
{"title":"Why are not all paediatric cancer patients treated with protons? A population-based report from Sweden, 2016-2023.","authors":"Anna Asklid, Ingrid Kristensen, Ulla Martinsson, Martin Nilsson, Malin Blomstrand, Måns Agrup, Anna Flejmer, Anna-Maja Svärd, Charlotta Fröjd, Erik Almhagen, Jacob Engellau, Anna Embring","doi":"10.2340/1651-226X.2025.43726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In 2015, a proton therapy (PT) facility was established in Sweden with one aim being to ensure access for all children expected to benefit from PT. Despite potential dosimetric advantages and full subsidisation, PT is not always selected. This study explores reasons for choosing alternative radiotherapy (RT) modalities in a paediatric population.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>RT courses delivered to patients ≤ 18 years during 2016-2023 were identified from a national registry. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed to identify reasons for not selecting PT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 34% (n = 275) of all courses identified were delivered with PT. Of the remaining 66% (n = 544), 90% were photon RT, 9% combined PT and photon RT, and 1% electron RT. Among photon RT courses, 97% were delivered with conventional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), 2% with stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), and 1% with brachytherapy. The most common reason for choosing photons was non-curative intent (35%), followed by equal or superior expected outcome compared to PT (23%), total body irradiation (TBI) (15%), and uncertainties due to air, organ motion, or metal in field (15%). Dosimetric comparison led to the selection of a favourable or equal photon plan in 8%. Logistical, social, and technical reasons constituted 4%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While PT can reduce radiation exposure to healthy tissues, particularly important in children, clinical, logistical, and technical factors often necessitate alternative RT modalities. This study highlights the importance of individualised RT planning and multidisciplinary collaboration to balance medical, technical, and practical considerations to ensure optimal treatment approach in every child.</p>","PeriodicalId":7110,"journal":{"name":"Acta Oncologica","volume":"64 ","pages":"1160-1167"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12416337/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Oncologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.43726","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In 2015, a proton therapy (PT) facility was established in Sweden with one aim being to ensure access for all children expected to benefit from PT. Despite potential dosimetric advantages and full subsidisation, PT is not always selected. This study explores reasons for choosing alternative radiotherapy (RT) modalities in a paediatric population.

Material and methods: RT courses delivered to patients ≤ 18 years during 2016-2023 were identified from a national registry. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed to identify reasons for not selecting PT.

Results: Only 34% (n = 275) of all courses identified were delivered with PT. Of the remaining 66% (n = 544), 90% were photon RT, 9% combined PT and photon RT, and 1% electron RT. Among photon RT courses, 97% were delivered with conventional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), 2% with stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), and 1% with brachytherapy. The most common reason for choosing photons was non-curative intent (35%), followed by equal or superior expected outcome compared to PT (23%), total body irradiation (TBI) (15%), and uncertainties due to air, organ motion, or metal in field (15%). Dosimetric comparison led to the selection of a favourable or equal photon plan in 8%. Logistical, social, and technical reasons constituted 4%.

Conclusion: While PT can reduce radiation exposure to healthy tissues, particularly important in children, clinical, logistical, and technical factors often necessitate alternative RT modalities. This study highlights the importance of individualised RT planning and multidisciplinary collaboration to balance medical, technical, and practical considerations to ensure optimal treatment approach in every child.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

为什么不是所有的儿科癌症患者都用质子治疗?2016-2023年瑞典人口报告
背景:2015年,瑞典建立了质子治疗(PT)设施,目的之一是确保所有儿童都能从PT中受益。尽管有潜在的剂量学优势和全额补贴,但PT并不总是被选择。本研究探讨了在儿科人群中选择替代放疗(RT)方式的原因。材料和方法:从国家登记处确定2016-2023年期间≤18岁患者的RT课程。结果:在所有确定的疗程中,只有34% (n = 275)采用了PT。在其余66% (n = 544)中,90%为光子RT, 9%为PT和光子RT联合,1%为电子RT。在光子RT疗程中,97%为常规外束放疗(EBRT), 2%为立体定向放疗(SRT), 1%为近距离放疗。选择光子最常见的原因是无治疗意图(35%),其次是与PT相比的相同或更好的预期结果(23%),全身照射(TBI)(15%),以及由于空气,器官运动或金属在场(15%)造成的不确定性。剂量学比较导致在8%中选择有利或相等的光子计划。后勤、社会和技术原因占4%。结论:虽然PT可以减少对健康组织的辐射暴露,尤其是对儿童,但临床、后勤和技术因素往往需要替代的RT模式。本研究强调了个性化RT计划和多学科合作的重要性,以平衡医疗,技术和实际考虑,以确保每个儿童的最佳治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Oncologica
Acta Oncologica 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
301
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Acta Oncologica is a journal for the clinical oncologist and accepts articles within all fields of clinical cancer research. Articles on tumour pathology, experimental oncology, radiobiology, cancer epidemiology and medical radio physics are also welcome, especially if they have a clinical aim or interest. Scientific articles on cancer nursing and psychological or social aspects of cancer are also welcomed. Extensive material may be published as Supplements, for which special conditions apply.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信