Advertisement

Quality of Life and Value Considerations in Head and Neck Proton Beam Therapy: The Holy Grail at Last, or the Quest Continues?

  • David J. Sher
    Correspondence
    Reprint requests to: David J. Sher, MD, MPH, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5801 Lake Forest Rd, Dallas, TX 75390. Tel: (214) 645-7651
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiation Oncology and Division of Outcomes and Health Services Research, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jolie Ringash
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
      The Holy Grail of head and neck radiation therapy innovation would be the marvelously perfect technical ability to treat all cancer and absolutely none of the surrounding tissues. Although the advent of proton beam therapy (PBT) may have persuaded some in the radiation oncology community that the quest for the Grail is over or soon to come to an end, the Grail, as a mythical vessel with no firm evidence of true existence, remains an excellent symbol for PBT in 2016.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      ASTRO Member Login
      ASTRO Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Use your society credentials to access all journal content and features.

      Purchase one-time access:

      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Patel S.H.
        • Wang Z.
        • Wong W.W.
        • et al.
        Charged particle therapy versus photon therapy for paranasal sinus and nasal cavity malignant diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15: 1027-1038
        • Holliday E.B.
        • Garden A.S.
        • Rosenthal D.I.
        • et al.
        Proton therapy reduces treatment-related toxicities for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer: A case-match control study of intensity-modulated proton therapy and intensity-modulated photon therapy.
        Int J Particle Ther. 2015; 2: 19-28
        • Kandula S.
        • Zhu X.
        • Garden A.S.
        • et al.
        Spot-scanning beam proton therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy for ipsilateral head and neck malignancies: A treatment planning comparison.
        Med Dosim. 2013; 38: 390-394
        • Kraan A.C.
        • van de Water S.
        • Teguh D.N.
        • et al.
        Dose uncertainties in IMPT for oropharyngeal cancer in the presence of anatomical, range, and setup errors.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 87: 888-896
        • Simone II, C.B.
        • Ly D.
        • Dan T.D.
        • et al.
        Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, adaptive radiotherapy, proton radiotherapy, and adaptive proton radiotherapy for treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer.
        Radiother Oncol. 2011; 101: 376-382
        • van der Laan H.P.
        • van de Water T.A.
        • van Herpt H.E.
        • et al.
        The potential of intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy to reduce swallowing dysfunction in the treatment of head and neck cancer: A planning comparative study.
        Acta Oncol. 2013; 52: 561-569
        • Wikipedia
        Holy Grail.
        (Available at:) (Accessed January 19, 2016)

      Comments

      Commenting Guidelines

      To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:

      • We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
      • This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
      • We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
      • Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
      • Comments are not peer-reviewed.