Citations

Objectives: To assess if excess absolute risk (EAR) of radiation-induced solid cancer can be used to rank radiotherapy plans for treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in a statistically significant way. Methods: EAR models, calibrated with data from the Life Span Study and HL survivors, have been incorporated into a voxelised risk-calculation software, which is used to compare four treatment modalities planned for five virtual HL patients. Organ-specific parameters are generated repeatedly in a Monte Carlo fashion to model their uncertainties. This in turn enables a quantitative estimation of the EAR uncertainties. Results: Parameter-driven uncertainties on total EAR are around 13%, decreasing to around 2–5% for relative EAR comparisons. Total EAR estimations indicate that intensity modulated proton therapy decreases the average risk by 40% compared to the intensity modulated radiation therapy plan, 28% compared to the volumetric modulated arc therapy plan whereas the three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy plan is equivalent within the uncertainty. Conclusion: Relative EAR is a useful metric for distinguishing between radiotherapy plans in terms of second cancer risk. Advances in knowledge: Relative EAR is not dominated by model or parameter uncertainties and can be used to guide the choice of radiotherapy for HL patients.

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.