Time filter

Source Type

Sheehan M.,University of Oxford | Timlin C.,University of Oxford | Peach K.,University of Oxford | Binik A.,University of Western Ontario | And 24 more authors.
Journal of Medical Ethics | Year: 2014

The use of charged-particle radiation therapy (CPRT) is an increasingly important development in the treatment of cancer. One of the most pressing controversies about the use of this technology is whether randomised controlled trials are required before this form of treatment can be considered to be the treatment of choice for a wide range of indications. Equipoise is the key ethical concept in determining which research studies are justied. However, there is a good deal of disagreement about how this concept is best understood and applied in the specic case of CPRT. This report is a position statement on these controversies that arises out of a workshop held at Wolfson College, Oxford in August 2011. The workshop brought together international leaders in the relevant elds (radiation oncology, medical physics, radiobiology, research ethics and methodology), including proponents on both sides of the debate, in order to make signicant progress on the ethical issues associated with CPRT research. This position statement provides an ethical platform for future research and should enable further work to be done in developing international coordinated programmes of research.

Pijls-Johannesma M.,Maastricht Radiation Oncology MAASTRO Clinic | Pijls-Johannesma M.,Maastricht University | Grutters J.P.C.,Maastricht Radiation Oncology MAASTRO Clinic | Grutters J.P.C.,Maastricht University | And 7 more authors.
Oncologist | Year: 2010

Background. The societal burden of lung cancer is high because of its high incidence and high lethality. From a theoretical point of view, radiotherapy with beams of protons and heavier charged particles, for example, carbon ions (C-ions), should lead to superior results, compared with photon beams. In this review, we searched for clinical evidence to justify implementation of particle therapy as standard treatment in lung cancer. Methods. A systematic literature review based on an earlier published comprehensive review was performed and updated through November 2009. Results. Eleven fully published studies, all dealing with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), mainly stage I, were identified. No phase III trials were found. For proton therapy, 2- to 5-year local tumor control rates varied in the range of 57%-87%. The 2- and 5-year overall survival (OS) and 2- and 5-year cause-specific survival (CSS) rates were 31%-74% and 23% and 58%-86% and 46%, respectively. Radiation-induced pneumonitis was observed in about 10% of patients. For C-ion therapy, the overall local tumor control rate was 77%, but it was 95% when using a hypofractionated radiation schedule. The 5-year OS and CSS rates were 42% and 60%, respectively. Slightly better results were reported when using hypofractionation, 50% and 76%, respectively. Conclusion. The present results with protons and heavier charged particles are promising. However, the current lack of evidence on the clinical (cost-)effectiveness of particle therapy emphasizes the need to investigate the efficiency of particle therapy in an adequate manner. Until these results are available for lung cancer, charged particle therapy should be considered experimental. ©AlphaMed Press.

Peeters A.,Maastricht Radiation Oncology MAASTRO Clinic | Peeters A.,Maastricht University | Grutters J.P.C.,Maastricht Radiation Oncology MAASTRO Clinic | Grutters J.P.C.,Maastricht University | And 9 more authors.
Radiotherapy and Oncology | Year: 2010

Purpose: Particle therapy has potentially a better therapeutic ratio than photon therapy. However, investment costs are much higher. This study provides an estimation and comparison of the costs of these therapies. Methods: Within an extensive analytical framework capital and operational costs, cost per fraction, and four tumor specific treatment costs are calculated for three facilities: combined carbon-ion/proton, proton-only, and photon. Results: Capital costs for the combined, proton-only and photon facilities are: € 138.6 million, € 94.9 million, € 23.4 million. Total costs per year are: € 36.7 million, € 24.9 million, € 9.6 million. Cost per fraction is: € 1128 (€ 877-1974), € 743 (€ 578-1300), € 233 (€ 190-407). Cost ratio particle/photon therapy is 4.8 for the combined and 3.2 for the proton-only facility. Particle treatment costs vary from € 10,030 (c-ion: lung cancer) to € 39,610 (proton: head & neck tumors). Cost difference between particle and photon therapies is relatively small for lung and prostate cancer, larger for skull-base chordoma and head & neck tumors. Conclusion: Investment costs are highest for the combined carbon-ion/proton facility and lowest for the photon facility. Cost differences become smaller when total costs per year and specific treatment costs are compared. Lower fractionation schedule of particle therapy might further reduce its costs. © 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Discover hidden collaborations