The entry of new technology into medical practice is complex. New technology in radiation oncology includes advances in imaging (including anatomic and molecular/functional imaging) and radiation therapy planning and delivery involving intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT), and therapy with particles such as protons and carbon ions. The necessary research and development includes establishing baselines as to the current state of the art, and establishing quality assurance guidelines and procedures that meet the demands of the new technology. It further involves developing consensus as to what data and studies are needed, ranging from single-institution studies to multi-institutional phase II and phase III clinical trials, including measures of cost-effectiveness as appropriate.
On November 30–December 2, 2006, the Radiation Research Program of the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) hosted a workshop entitled “Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology: Evaluating the Current Status and Future Potential of Proton and Other Heavy Charged- Particle Radiation Therapy, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy and Stereotactic Radiation Therapy.” The purpose of this workshop was to discuss current issues related to the advanced technologies, with an eye toward (1) defining the specific toxicities that have limited the success of “conventional” radiation therapy, (2) examining the evidence from phase III studies for improvements attributed to the advanced technologies in the management of several cancers commonly treated with radiation therapy, and (3) determining the opportunities and priorities for further technologic development and clinical trials.
The 2½-day workshop included presentations on general topics such as quality assurance, a framework for device-based clinical trials, and device evaluation from the perspective of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In addition, there were several presentations on the state of the science by anatomic site, followed by three breakout groups: (1) brain, head and neck, pediatrics; (2) trunk (breast, lung, upper abdomen); and (3) pelvis (prostate, uterus, colon/rectum).
The workshop agenda, a list of the workshop participants, and their presentations can be found at the following website (more details may be obtained from the authors): http:// www3.cancer.gov/rrp/workshop/ 2006AdvancedRadiationTech/presentations. html. The participants had been selected by National Institutes of Health (NIH) staff to represent a broad spectrum of expertise from NIH-funded grantees, cooperative cancer clinical trials groups, cancer centers, professional societies, and industry. Each participant declared their conflicts of interest to all the participants at the outset of the workshop. No formal votes were taken, but the leaders of the breakout sessions did summarize the deliberations for NIH staff, who were solely responsible for compiling this report.
The new technologies undoubtedly offer a substantial theoretical advantage in radiation dose distributions that, if realized in clinical practice, may help many cancer patients live longer and/or better. The precision of the advanced technologies may allow us to reduce the volume of normal tissue irradiated in the vicinity of the clinical target volume (CTV) or, in other words, decrease the planning target volume so that it approximates the CTV. Therefore, defining the precise size and shape of the CTV as well as the organs at risk becomes critical, as does accounting for changes in the position (motion) and changes in size and shape (deformation) of the CTV and the organs at risk, between and within radiation fractions, in order to avoid inadvertently missing the CTV.
The advanced technologies can also result in a greater volume of healthy tissue receiving some radiation compared with “conventional” techniques of radiation therapy, due to the generation of such radiation by the machines and/or the multiple fields employed.[1,2] Therefore, investigators must also consider long-term toxicity, including the risk of new radiation-induced cancers.
The costs of the new technologies were considered in the discussions in general terms only, including the need for expert personnel, additional time for treatment planning and delivery, and the cost of equipment. Issues of reimbursement and the regulation of how and when new treatments and technologies are approved for clinical use, however, were considered to be beyond the scope of this workshop and the mission of the NCI.
1. Kry SF, Salehpour M, Followill DS, et
al: The calculated risk of fatal secondary malignancies
from intensity-modulated radiation
therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:1195-
2. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ: Secondary neutrons
in clinical proton radiotherapy: A charged issue.
Radiother Oncol 86:165-170, 2008.
3. Das IJ, Cheng CW, Chopra KL, et al:
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose
prescription, recording, and delivery: Patterns
of variability among institutions and treatment
planning systems. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:300-
4. Ibbott GS, Molineu A, Followill DS: Independent evaluations of IMRT through the
use of an anthropomorphic phantom. Technol
Cancer Res Treat 5:481-487, 2006.
5. Cooper JS, Mukherji SK, Toledano AY,
et al: An evaluation of the variability of tumorshape
definition derived by experienced observers
from CT images of supraglottic carcinomas
(ACRIN protocol 6658). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 67:972-975, 2007.
6. Li XA, Arthur DW, Bucholz TA, et al:
Variability of target and normal structure
delineation for breast-cancer radiotherapy: A
RTOG multi-institutional and multi-observer
study (abstract 127). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 69(3 suppl 1):S72, 2006.
7. Lawton CA, Michalski J, El-Naqa I, et
al: Variation in the definition of clinical target
volumes for pelvic node conformal radiation
therapy of prostate cancer (abstract 2224).
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69(3 suppl 1):
8. Davidson SE, Ibbott GS, Prado KL,
et al: Accuracy of two heterogeneity dose
calculation algorithms for IMRT in treatment
plans designed using an anthropomorphic
thorax phantom. Med Phys 34:1850-1857,
9. Followill DS, Evans DR, Cherry C, et
al: Design, development, and implementation
of the radiological physics center’s pelvis and
thorax anthropomorphic quality assurance phantoms.
Med Phys 34:2070-2076, 2007.
10. Soares HP, Kumar A, Daniels S, et al:
Evaluation of new treatments in radiation oncology:
Are they better than standard treatments?
JAMA 293:970-978, 2005.
11. Kumar A, Soares H, Wells R, et al:
Are experimental treatments for cancer in
children superior to established treatments?
Observational study of randomised controlled
trials by the Children’s Oncology Group. BMJ