Back to Authors

Fossati, Piero

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9803-242X

Mayo Clinic

Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences

Citations 2

Pragmatic, Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Carbon Ion Therapy, Surgery, and Proton Therapy for the Management of Pelvic Sarcomas (Soft Tissue/Bone) Involving the Bone: The PROSPER Study Rationale and Design
Petersen, Ivy A. , Imai, Reiko , Hug, Eugen B., Fiore, Maria Rosaria , Fossati, Piero , Yamada, Shigeru , Orlandi, Ester , Zhang, Qing, Bao, Cihang , Seidensaal, Katharina , May, Byron C. , Harrell, Anna , Houdek, Matthew T. , Vallow, Laura A., Rose, Peter S. , Haddock, Michael G. , Ashman, Jonathan B. , Goulding, Krista , Attia, Steven , Krishnan, Sunil , Mahajan, Anita , Foote, Robert L. , Keole, Sameer R., Beltran, Chris , Welch, Eric M., Wilke, Benjamin K. , Imai, Reiko , Yamada, Shigeru , Zhang, Qing , May, Byron C , Harrell, Anna C , Houdek, Matthew T , Goulding, Krista A., Krishnan, Sunil , Foote, Robert , Karim, Mohammed, Ahmed, Safia K. , Beltran, Chris J , Hoppe, Bradford S. , DeWees, T.A. , Debus, Jürgen , Laack, Nadia N. , Karim, Mohammed

Cancers | March 8, 2023 | Volume: 15 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 1660

10.3390/cancers15061660 Get It

Surgical treatment of pelvic sarcoma involving the bone is the standard of care but is associated with several sequelae and reduced functional quality of life (QOL). Treatment with photon and proton radiotherapy is associated with relapse. Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) may reduce both relapse rates and treatment sequelae. The PROSPER study is a tricontinental, nonrandomized, prospective, three-arm, pragmatic trial evaluating treatments of pelvic sarcoma involving the bone. Patients aged at least 15 years are eligible for inclusion. Participants must have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status score of two or less, newly diagnosed disease, and histopathologic confirmation of pelvic chordoma, chondrosarcoma, osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma with bone involvement, rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) with bone involvement, or non-RMS soft tissue sarcoma with bone involvement. Treatment arms include (1) CIRT (n = 30) delivered in Europe and Asia, (2) surgical treatment with or without adjuvant radiotherapy (n = 30), and (3) proton therapy (n = 30). Arms two and three will be conducted at Mayo Clinic campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. The primary end point is to compare the 1-year change in functional QOL between CIRT and surgical treatment. Additional comparisons among the three arms will be made between treatment sequelae, local control, and other QOL measures.
Position statement on ethics, equipoise and research on charged particle radiation therapy
Sheehan, Mark , Peach, Ken , Binik, Ariella , Wilson, Puthenparampil , Lodge, Mark , Kehoe, Sean , Brada, Michael, Clarke, Steve , Crellin, A., Dunn, Michael , Fossati, Piero , Harris, Steve , Hocken, Michael, Hope, Tony, Ives, Jonathan , Kamada, Tadashi , London, Alex John , Miller, Robert C. , Pijls-Johannesma, Madelon, Short, Susan , Skene, Loane, Tsujii, Hirohiko, Tuan, Jeffrey , Weijer, Charles , Timlin, Claire L. , Burnet, N.G. , Parker, Michael James , Savulescu, Julian , Short, Susan C

Journal of Medical Ethics | September 18, 2013 | Volume: 40 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 572-575

10.1136/medethics-2012-101290 Get It

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 justified. However, there is a good deal of disagreement about how this concept is best understood and applied in the specific 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 fields (radiation oncology, medical physics, radiobiology, research ethics and methodology), including proponents on both sides of the debate, in order to make significant 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.