In the Netherlands, head and neck cancer (HNC) patients qualify for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) based on model-based selection (MBS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the first experience in MBS of HNC patients. Methods: Patients who were subjected to MBS (Jan 2018-Sep 2019) were evaluated. A VMAT plan was created for all patients with optimal sparing of organ at risks (OARs) in normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for a number of toxicities. An IMPT plan was created only for those with NTCP difference (DNTCP) between VMAT and best-case scenario for proton (assuming 0 Gy dose for all OARs in IMPT plan) that exceeded any DNTCP-thresholds defined in Dutch National Indication Protocol. These patients qualified for a robust IMPT-plan creation with similar target doses and subsequent plan comparison. Results: Of 227 patients, 141 (62%) qualified for plan comparison, of which 80 (35%) were eventually selected for proton therapy. Most patients were selected based on the DNTCP for dysphagia-related toxicities. The selection rate was higher among patients with advanced disease, pharyngeal tumors, and/or baseline complaints. A significant reduction in all OAR doses and NTCP values was obtained with IMPT compared with VMAT in both selected and non-selected patients, but more pronounced in patients selected for protons. Conclusion: Model-based selection of patients with HNC for proton therapy is clinically feasible. Approximately one third of HNC patients qualify for protons and these patients have the highest probability to benefit from protons in terms of toxicity prevention.

Metaplastic breast carcinoma (MBC) differs from classic invasive ductal carcinomas regarding incidence, pathogenesis, and prognosis. The purpose of this study was to compare patients with MBC with clinicopathologic and treatment-matched patients with triple-negative breast carcinoma (TNBC) in terms of response to treatment, progression, and survival.Fifty-four patients with MBC and 51 with TNBC, who were treated at Istanbul University, Institute of Oncology, between 1993 and 2014, were included in the study. After correctly matching the patients with 1 of the 2 groups, they were compared to determine differences in response to treatment, disease progression, clinical course, and survival.At a median follow-up of 28 months, 18 patients (17.1%) died and 27 (25.5%) had disease progression. Metaplastic histology was significantly correlated with worse 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) (51 ± 9% vs. 82 ± 6%, P = 0.013) and overall survival (OS) (68 ± 8% vs. 94 ± 4%, P = 0.009) compared with TNBC histology. Patients who received taxane-based chemotherapy (CT) regimens or adjuvant radiotherapy had significantly better PFS (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001) and OS (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001) compared with others. In the multivariate analysis, MBC (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.09, P < 0.001), presence of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) (HR: 12.8, P = 0.05), and metastasis development at any time during the clinical course (HR: 38.7, P < 0.001) were significant factors that decreased PFS, whereas metastasis development was the only independent prognostic factor of OS (HR: 23.8, P = 0.009).MBC is significantly correlated with worse PFS and OS compared with TNBC. Patients with MBC are resistant to conventional CT agents, and more efficient treatment regimens are required.

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been shown to be aberrantly expressed in head and neck cancer (HNC). The aim of the present study was to evaluate plasma levels of three lncRNA molecules (lincRNA-p21, GAS5, and HOTAIR) in the treatment response in HNC patients treated with radical chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Forty-one patients with HNC were enrolled in the study. Most of the patients had nasopharyngeal carcinoma (n = 27, 65.9 %) and locally advanced disease. Blood was drawn at baseline and treatment evaluation 4.5 months after therapy. lncRNAs in plasma were measured by semiquantitative PCR. Treatment response was evaluated according to clinical examination, RECIST and PERCIST criteria based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) findings. Complete response (CR) rates were 73.2, 36.6, and 50 % for clinical investigation, PET/CT-, or MRI-based response evaluation, respectively. Predictive value of lncRNAs was investigated in patients with CR vs. those with partial response (PR)/progressive disease (PD). We found that post-treatment GAS5 levels in patients with PR/PD were significantly higher compared with patients with CR based on clinical investigation (p = 0.01). Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that at a cutoff value of 0.3 of GAS5, sensitivity and specificity for clinical tumor response were 82 and 77 %, respectively. Interestingly, pretreatment GAS5 levels were significantly increased in patients with PR/PD compared to those with CR upon MRI-based response evaluation (p = 0.042). In contrast to GAS5, pretreatment or post-treatment lincRNA-p21 and HOTAIR levels were not informative for treatment response. Our results suggest that circulating GAS5 could be a biomarker in predicting treatment response in HNC patients.

Background and purpose: Major differences exist among proton therapy (PT) centres regarding PT delivery in adult cancer patient. To obtain insight into current practice in Europe, we performed a survey among European PT centres. Materials and methods: We designed electronic questionnaires for eight tumour sites, focusing on four main topics: 1) indications and patient selection methods; 2) reimbursement; 3) on-going or planned studies, 4) annual number of patients treated with PT. Results: Of 22 centres, 19 (86%) responded. In total, 4233 adult patients are currently treated across Europe annually, of which 46% consists of patients with central nervous system tumours (CNS), 15% head and neck cancer (HNC), 15% prostate, 9% breast, 5% lung, 5% gastrointestinal, 4% lymphoma, 0.3% gynaecological cancers. CNS are treated in all participating centres (n = 19) using PT, HNC in 16 centres, lymphoma in 10 centres, gastrointestinal in 10 centres, breast in 7 centres, prostate in 6 centres, lung in 6 centres, and gynaecological cancers in 3 centres. Reimbursement is provided by national health care systems for the majority of commonly treated tumour sites. Approximately 74% of centres enrol patients for prospective data registration programs. Phase II-III trials are less frequent, due to reimbursement and funding problems. Reasons for not treating certain tumour types with PT are lack of evidence (30%), reimbursement issues (29%) and/or technical limitations (20%). Conclusion: Across European PT centres, CNS tumours and HNC are the most frequently treated tumour types. Most centres use indication protocols. Lack of evidence for PT and reimbursement issues are the most reported reasons for not treating specific tumour types with PT.