Cargando…

Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy

BACKGROUND: Proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers high-energy radiation to target tumours while sparing surrounding normal tissues. The dosimetric advantages of PBT over traditional photon radiotherapy may be clear but the translation of this benefit into clinically meaningful reductions in toxicities...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ofuya, Mercy, McParland, Lucy, Murray, Louise, Brown, Sarah, Sebag-Montefiore, David, Hall, Emma
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6660607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31372521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2019.07.002
_version_ 1783439332074323968
author Ofuya, Mercy
McParland, Lucy
Murray, Louise
Brown, Sarah
Sebag-Montefiore, David
Hall, Emma
author_facet Ofuya, Mercy
McParland, Lucy
Murray, Louise
Brown, Sarah
Sebag-Montefiore, David
Hall, Emma
author_sort Ofuya, Mercy
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers high-energy radiation to target tumours while sparing surrounding normal tissues. The dosimetric advantages of PBT over traditional photon radiotherapy may be clear but the translation of this benefit into clinically meaningful reductions in toxicities and improved quality-of-life (QoL) needs to be determined. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for generating the highest-level evidence in medicine. The objectives of this systematic review were to provide an overview of published clinical studies evaluating the benefits of PBT, and to examine the methodology used in clinical trials with respect to study design and outcomes. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for published clinical studies where PBT was a cancer treatment intervention. All randomised and non-randomised studies, prospective or retrospective, were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: In total, 219 studies were included. Prospective studies comprised 89/219 (41%), and of these, the number of randomised phase II and III trials were 5/89 (6%) and 3/89 (3%) respectively. Of all the phase II and III trials, 18/24 (75%) were conducted at a single PBT centre. Over one-third of authors recommended an increase in length of follow up. Research design and/or findings were poorly reported in 74/89 (83%) of prospective studies. Patient reported outcomes were assessed in only 19/89 (21%) of prospective studies. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective randomised evidence for PBT is limited. The set-up of national PBT services in several countries provides an opportunity to guide the optimal design of prospective studies, including RCTs, to evaluate the benefits of PBT across various disease sites. Collaboration between PBT centres, both nationally and internationally, would increase potential for the generation of practice changing evidence. There is a need to facilitate and guide the collection and analysis of meaningful outcome data, including late toxicities and patient reported QoL.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6660607
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66606072019-08-01 Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy Ofuya, Mercy McParland, Lucy Murray, Louise Brown, Sarah Sebag-Montefiore, David Hall, Emma Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Article BACKGROUND: Proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers high-energy radiation to target tumours while sparing surrounding normal tissues. The dosimetric advantages of PBT over traditional photon radiotherapy may be clear but the translation of this benefit into clinically meaningful reductions in toxicities and improved quality-of-life (QoL) needs to be determined. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for generating the highest-level evidence in medicine. The objectives of this systematic review were to provide an overview of published clinical studies evaluating the benefits of PBT, and to examine the methodology used in clinical trials with respect to study design and outcomes. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for published clinical studies where PBT was a cancer treatment intervention. All randomised and non-randomised studies, prospective or retrospective, were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: In total, 219 studies were included. Prospective studies comprised 89/219 (41%), and of these, the number of randomised phase II and III trials were 5/89 (6%) and 3/89 (3%) respectively. Of all the phase II and III trials, 18/24 (75%) were conducted at a single PBT centre. Over one-third of authors recommended an increase in length of follow up. Research design and/or findings were poorly reported in 74/89 (83%) of prospective studies. Patient reported outcomes were assessed in only 19/89 (21%) of prospective studies. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective randomised evidence for PBT is limited. The set-up of national PBT services in several countries provides an opportunity to guide the optimal design of prospective studies, including RCTs, to evaluate the benefits of PBT across various disease sites. Collaboration between PBT centres, both nationally and internationally, would increase potential for the generation of practice changing evidence. There is a need to facilitate and guide the collection and analysis of meaningful outcome data, including late toxicities and patient reported QoL. Elsevier 2019-07-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6660607/ /pubmed/31372521 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2019.07.002 Text en © 2019 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Ofuya, Mercy
McParland, Lucy
Murray, Louise
Brown, Sarah
Sebag-Montefiore, David
Hall, Emma
Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy
title Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy
title_full Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy
title_fullStr Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy
title_short Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy
title_sort systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6660607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31372521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2019.07.002
work_keys_str_mv AT ofuyamercy systematicreviewofmethodologyusedinclinicalstudiesevaluatingthebenefitsofprotonbeamtherapy
AT mcparlandlucy systematicreviewofmethodologyusedinclinicalstudiesevaluatingthebenefitsofprotonbeamtherapy
AT murraylouise systematicreviewofmethodologyusedinclinicalstudiesevaluatingthebenefitsofprotonbeamtherapy
AT brownsarah systematicreviewofmethodologyusedinclinicalstudiesevaluatingthebenefitsofprotonbeamtherapy
AT sebagmontefioredavid systematicreviewofmethodologyusedinclinicalstudiesevaluatingthebenefitsofprotonbeamtherapy
AT hallemma systematicreviewofmethodologyusedinclinicalstudiesevaluatingthebenefitsofprotonbeamtherapy