Records study finds no clear clinical benefit from proton therapy for prostate cancer

BMJ ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 344 (apr17 2) ◽  
pp. e2767-e2767
Author(s):  
K. Epstein
Author(s):  
Hiroki Sato ◽  
Takahiro Kato ◽  
Tomoaki Motoyanagi ◽  
Kimihiro Takemasa ◽  
Yuki Narita ◽  
...  

Abstract In recent years, a novel technique has been employed to maintain a distance between the prostate and the rectum by transperineally injecting a hydrogel spacer (HS). However, the effect of HS on the prostate positional displacement is poorly understood, despite its stability with HS in place. In this study, we investigated the effect of HS insertion on the interfraction prostate motion during the course of proton therapy (PT) for Japanese prostate cancer patients. The study population consisted of 22 cases of intermediate-risk prostate cancer with 11 cases with HS insertion and 11 cases without HS insertion. The irradiation position and preparation were similar for both groups. To test for reproducibility, regular confirmation computed tomography (RCCT) was done four times during the treatment period, and five times overall [including treatment planning CT (TPCT)] in each patient. Considering the prostate position of the TPCT as the reference, the change in the center of gravity of the prostate relative to the bony anatomy in the RCCTs of each patient was determined in the left–right (LR), superior–inferior (SI) and anterior–posterior (AP) directions. As a result, no significant difference was observed across the groups in the LR and SI directions. Conversely, a significant difference was observed in the AP direction (P < 0.05). The proportion of the 3D vector length ≤5 mm was 95% in the inserted group, but 55% in the non-inserted group. Therefore, HS is not only effective in reducing rectal dose, but may also contribute to the positional reproducibility of the prostate.


2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
pp. 598-604
Author(s):  
Kia Busch ◽  
Benjamin Dahl ◽  
Stine E. Petersen ◽  
Heidi S. Rønde ◽  
Lise Bentzen ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
C.M. Bryant ◽  
B. Hoppe ◽  
R.C. Nichols ◽  
R. Henderson ◽  
W.M. Mendenhall ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
L. Zhao ◽  
I.J. Das ◽  
J. Kuros-Zolnierczuk ◽  
P.A. Johnstone

Author(s):  
William M. Mendenhall ◽  
Eric D. Brooks ◽  
Stephanie Smith ◽  
Christopher G. Morris ◽  
Curtis B. Bryant ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose To determine factors that influence insurance approval for definitive proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Between 2014 and 2018, 1592 insured patients with localized prostate cancer were evaluated and recommended to undergo definitive PT; 547 patients (34.4%) had commercial insurance, whereas 1045 patients (65.6%) had Medicare/Medicaid. Of those with Medicare, 164 patients (15.7%) had Medicare alone; 677 (64.8%) had supplemental plans; and 204 (19.5%) had secondary commercial insurance. Insurance that “covered” PT for prostate cancer implied that it was an indication designated in the coverage policy. “Not covered” means that the insurance policy did not list prostate cancer as an indication for PT. Of all 1592 patients, 1263 (79.3%) belonged to plans that covered PT per policy. However, approval for PT was still required via medical review for 619 patients (38.9%), comparative dosimetry for 56 patients (3.5%), peer-to-peer discussion for 234 patients (14.7%), and administrative law judge hearings for 3 patients (<0.1%). Multivariate analyses of factors affecting approval were conducted, including risk group (low/intermediate versus high), insurance type (commercial versus Medicare/Medicaid), whether PT was included as a covered benefit under the plan (covered versus not covered), and time period (2014-16 versus 2017 versus 2018). Results On multivariate analysis, factors affecting PT approval for prostate treatment included coverage of PT per policy (97.1% had approval with insurance that covered PT versus 48.6% whose insurance did not cover PT; P < .001); insurance type (32.5% had approval with commercial insurance versus 97.4% with Medicare; P < .001); and time, with 877/987 patients (88.9%) approved between 2014 and 2016, 255/312 patients (81.7%) approved during 2017, and 255/293 patients (87.0%) approved thereafter (P = .02). Clinical factors, including risk group, had no bearing on insurance approval (P = .44). Conclusion Proton insurance approval for prostate cancer has decreased, is most influenced by the type of insurance a patient belongs to, and is unrelated to clinical factors (risk group) in this study. More work is needed to help navigate appropriate access to care and to assist patients seeking definitive PT for prostate cancer treatment.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 518-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek T. Lee ◽  
Nancy P. Mendenhall ◽  
Tamara L. Smith ◽  
Christopher G. Morris ◽  
Romaine C. Nichols ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (9) ◽  
pp. 4011-4019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Moteabbed ◽  
Alexei Trofimov ◽  
Fazal H. Khan ◽  
Yi Wang ◽  
Gregory C. Sharp ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document