PTCOG international survey of practice patterns and trends in utilization of proton therapy for breast cancer.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: S.M.M. reports travel reimbursement and speaking engagements with IBA and ICOTEC. All other authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.