Pankuch, Mark

Abstract Objectives: In the RadComp randomized trial, we compared radiation dose to cardiac substructures in patients treated with proton versus photon radiation therapy (RT) ; evaluated changes in cardiac-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes from baseline to 6 months following RT; and determined associations between radiation dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters and changes in cardiac-specific HRQOL. Methods: The study cohort included patients with locally advanced breast cancer enrolled on RadComp who completed treatment per protocol, had available radiation DVH metrics for all cardiac substructures, and completed both the baseline and at least one follow-up cardiac-specific HRQOL over the 6 months post-RT. Cardiac-specific HRQOL measures included PROMIS fatigue, PRO-CTCAE shortness of breath (SOB) (severity and interference with daily activities), and PRO-CTCAE chest pain, chest tightness, and angina (frequency, severity, and interference). Detailed dose volume histograms (DVH) for cardiac substructures included the whole heart, left ventricle (LV), right ventricle (RV), left atrium (LA), right atrium (RA), and left anterior descending artery (LAD) were derived. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare dose distributions between photon and proton RT. Associations between DVH metrics and HRQOL outcomes were evaluated using repeated-measures linear regression via generalized estimating equations with an independent working correlation structure. All models were adjusted for RT type, age, cardiovascular risk factors, surgery type, laterality, ethnicity, education, timepoint, and race. Additional stratified analyses was performed according to laterality (right versus left + bilateral). Results: Across 1160 RadComp participants, RT exposure to cardiac substructures differed significantly between proton and photon RT and by laterality. Median mean heart dose was lower with protons, 0.9 Gy (Q1, Q3 0.49, 1.46), compared to photons 2.83 Gy (Q1, Q3 1.49, 4.52) (p< 0.001), and lower for right-sided disease, 0.91 Gy (Q1, Q3 0.44, 1.55), compared to left and bilateral 1.99 Gy (Q1, Q3 1.11, 3.63) (p<0.001). Similarly, for the LAD, LA, LV, and RA, mean proton dose was significantly lower (p<0.001). However, for the whole heart, RA, and RV, maximum doses to small-volume parameters and dose to 0.03cc were higher with proton RT. PRO-CTCAE measures of HRQOL were generally favorable at all timepoints across all participants, and grade ≥3 toxicity was rare (≤5.5%) for all measures. The PROMIS Fatigue T-Score increased from baseline (median 49 [Q1, Q3 46, 57]) to end of RT (55 [Q1, Q3 49, 63]), and returned to baseline levels at 6 months (p<0.001). While there were no significant differences in PRO-CTCAE SOB severity (p=0.24) and interference (p=0.11) over time, PRO-CTCAE chest pain worsened compared to pre-RT with respect to frequency (p<0.001), severity (p<0.001), and interference (p=0.008). However, the absolute changes were small. No DVH metrics were significantly associated with any cardiac-specific HRQOL outcomes. Stratification by laterality yielded similar results. Conclusions: Proton RT generally conferred significantly lower doses to the heart and cardiac substructures compared to photon RT. HRQOL outcomes were favorable across all participants, with fatigue returning to baseline, no change in SOB parameters, and a slight worsening of chest pain outcomes over 6 months following RT. Cardiac-specific HRQOLs appear not to be significantly affected by RT dose to cardiac substructures within the first 6 months post-RT. Other organs at risk that could also impact cardiac HRQOL endpoints, longer follow-up, and major cardiac events will be evaluated in future analyses. Citation Format: J. L. Wright, K. Ko, W. Kenworthy, W. Bosch, L. Braunstein, G. Freedman, E. Gillespie, R. Jimenez, S. Pugh, H. Lu, M. Pankuch, N. Remmes, W. Straube, W. Zou, E. Berlin, L. Fang, S. MacDonald, N. Taunk, J. Kim, A. Thukral, A. Taghian, M. Mishra, R. Mutter, V. Croog, D. Boggs, J. Urbanic, N. Ohri, A. Chawla, T. Meier, L. Rosen, M. Fegundes, O. Cahlon, K. Hoffman, A. Ferriozzi, J. Bekelman, A. Lin, B. Ky. Associations Between Cardiac Radiation Dose Volume Metrics and Cardiac Specific Health Related Quality of Life for Patients with Breast Cancer Randomized to Proton versus Photon Radiation on the RadComp Trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr RF6-04.

Abstract Background Standardizing beam modeling in the treatment planning system is challenging due to machine‐specific configuration variations. Because of the proton therapy system (PTS) complexity and continuous development, there is no vendor's representative (“golden”) beam data like in LINACs at this stage. Purpose The primary goal of this study is to create a PTS‐specific repository of source model parameters and beam commissioning data for scanning proton therapy treatment planning systems and establish a set of reference values with associated bands of variations for this data. Methods We conducted a survey of 31 PTSs at 27 proton therapy centers to gather beam commissioning source model parameters used in their treatment planning system, ensuring a diverse selection of PTSs from major vendors: Hitachi, IBA, Varian, and Mevion. For each proton therapy center, we collected (i) beam meterset calibration in protons per MU, (ii) in‐air spot size at isocenter in terms of standard deviation in x‐ (crossline, σ x ) and y‐ (inline, σ y ) directions, (iii) in‐air angular spread at isocenter in x‐direction (θ x ) and y‐direction (θ y ) and (iv) distal falloff. For each PTS, we plotted each parameter as a function of nominal energy and performed polynomial regression analysis with optimal model selection based on Akaike Information Criterion. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to quantify inter‐PTS variability and generated uncertainty bands representing standard deviations across PTSs for each parameter. Additionally, we computed percentage deviations of each individual PTS from the overall multi‐vendor mean to identify systematic vendor‐specific patterns and outliers across the 31 total PTSs analyzed. Results Multi‐vendor beam parameter analysis across 31 PTSs revealed systematic vendor‐specific patterns in inter‐PTS consistency and energy dependencies. Beam meterset calibration demonstrated excellent inter‐PTS consistency across most vendors (ICC: Varian ProBeam ≈ 0, IBA Proteus ONE = 0.006, Mevion S250i with HYPERSCAN = 0.015), with IBA Proteus PLUS systems showing moderate variation (ICC = 0.156 for the dedicated nozzle, ICC = 0.248, for the universal nozzle). Spot size and angular spread variability were highly vendor‐dependent, ranging from excellent consistency in IBA Proteus ONE to substantial variation in IBA Proteus PLUS with the universal nozzle (angular spread ICC = 0.566). Distal falloff maintained excellent consistency across all vendors (ICC < 0.023), indicating reliable energy spread characteristics. Uncertainty band analysis revealed characteristic energy‐dependent patterns, with most systems showing larger uncertainties at lower energies for spot size and angular spread, while IBA Proteus PLUS with the universal nozzle exhibited the largest uncertainty bands overall. Percentage deviation analysis demonstrated vendor‐specific clustering patterns, with some systems showing systematic positive or negative deviations from the multi‐vendor mean. Conclusions The reference data provided in this work will help to cross‐check the beam model during treatment planning system commissioning. Furthermore, this information is useful for Monte Carlo applications and research, where beam characteristics are required to set up phase space parameters, thereby avoiding the need to model the entire PTS. Finally, the results of this study will have indispensable educational value by providing valuable insights into the characteristics and capabilities of different PTSs.

Because proton beam therapy (PBT) can lower the dose of radiation to the heart, lungs, and breast, it is an established radiation modality for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Pencil beam scanning (PBS) PBT facilitates the treatment of more extensive targets. This may be especially of value for lymphoma patients who require RT to both mediastinal and axillary targets, defined here as extended target RT (ETRT), given the target distribution and need to minimize the lung, heart, and breast dose. Using the Proton Collaborative Group registry, we identified patients with HL treated with PBT to both their mediastinum and axilla, for which DICOM-RT was available. All patients were treated with PBS. To evaluate the dosimetric impact of PBS, we compared delivered PBS plans with VMAT butterfly photon plans optimized to have the same target volume coverage, when feasible. Between 2016 and 2021, twelve patients (median 26 years) received PBS ETRT (median 30.6 Gy (RBE)). Despite the large superior/inferior (SI, median 22.2 cm) and left/right (LR, median 22.8 cm) extent of the ETRT targets, all patients were treated with one isocenter except for two patients (both with SI and LR > 30 cm). Most commonly, anterior beams, with or without posterior beams, were used. Compared to photons, PBS had greater target coverage, better conformity, and lower dose heterogeneity while achieving lower doses to the lungs and heart, but not to the breast. No acute grade 3+ toxicities were reported, including pneumonitis. Proton ETRT in this small cohort was safely delivered with PBS and was associated with an improved sparing of the heart and lungs compared to VMAT.

Purpose: As patients with mediastinal lymphoma are typically young with curable disease, advanced radiation techniques such as proton therapy are often considered to minimize subacute and late toxicity. However, it is unclear which mediastinal lymphoma patients are treated with proton therapy. Within a prospective, multi-institutional proton registry, we characterized mediastinal lymphoma patients treated with proton therapy and assessed concordance with consensus recommendations published in 2018 by the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group (ILROG). Methods: Eligible patients included those with lymphoma of the mediastinum treated exclusively with proton therapy for whom digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) treatment data were available for review. Given the challenge with reliably visualizing the left mainstem coronary artery, the inferior-most aspect of the left pulmonary artery (PA) was used as a surrogate. Extent of disease was characterized as upper mediastinum (above level of left PA), middle mediastinum (below left PA but at or above level of T8), or low mediastinum (below T8). Results: Between November 2012 and April 2019, 56 patients were treated and met inclusion criteria. Patients treated with proton therapy were young (median, 24 y; range: 12 to 88), with over half being female (55%). Patients were most commonly treated at initial diagnosis (86%) and had Hodgkin lymphoma (79%). Most patients (96%) had mediastinal disease that extended down to the level of the heart: 48% had middle and 48% had low mediastinal involvement. Nearly all patients (96%) met the ILROG consensus recommendations: 95% had lower mediastinal disease, 46% were young females, and 9% were heavily pretreated. Heart (mean) and lung dose (mean, V5, V20) were significantly associated with lowest extent of mediastinal disease. Conclusions: Mediastinal lymphoma patients treated with proton therapy are typically young with lower mediastinal involvement. Within a prospective, multi-institutional proton registry, nearly all treated patients fit the ILROG consensus recommendations regarding which mediastinal lymphoma patients may most benefit from proton therapy.