The role of protons in modern and biologically-guided radiotherapy

Abstract

With the introduction of new biologically based imaging possibilities, a higher degree of individualisation and adaptation of radiotherapy will be possible. Better knowledge of the biology of the target and its sub-volumes will enable dose prescriptions tailored to the individual patients, tissues and sub-volumes. Repeated imaging during the course of treatment will in addition enable adaptation of the treatment to cope with anatomical, as well as biological changes of the patient and of the target tissues. To translate these bright future perspectives into significant improvements in clinical outcome, advanced tools to tailor the physical dose distributions are needed. The most conformal radiotherapy technique known to mankind and clinically available today is proton therapy; in particular Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) with active spot scanning can not only tailor the dose to the desired target, but also effectively avoid sensitive structures in the proximity of the target to a degree far better than other conformal techniques such as Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy with photons (IMRT). The development of IMPT is now mature enough for clinical introduction on a broad scale. Proton therapy is still more expensive than conventional radiotherapy, but with the present rapid increase in the number of proton facilities worldwide and new initiatives to improve efficiency, the difference in affordability will continue to decrease and in comparison with the benefits, soon diminish even further. Contrary to what is sometimes claimed, the demands for better physical dose distributions and better avoidance of non-target tissue, has never been higher. Prolonged expected survival in many groups of patients emphasises the need to reduce late toxicities. The success of concomitant systemic therapies, with their tendency to cause higher morbidity stresses even further the increased need for subtle dose-sculpting methodologies and tools. There is no contradiction between striving for better physical dose distributions and a more biologically based approach. On the contrary, physical dose distributions are the tools to which achieve a treatment that can meet the biological demands.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Mrs Ingrid Kristensen, University Hospital of Skåne, Sweden, for preparing all the treatment plans and to Prof. Alan E Nahum, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Wirral, UK, for valuable discussions and input.

Declaration of interest: The author report no conflicts of interest. The author alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.