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