Explore the vast range of titles available.

Proton beam therapy (PBT) is increasingly used to treat cancers, especially in the paediatric and adolescent and young adult (AYA) population. As PBT becomes more accessible, determining when PBT should be used instead of photon irradiation can be difficult. There is a need to balance patient, tumour and treatment factors when making this decision. Comparing the dosimetry between these two modalities plays an important role in this process. PBT can reduce low to intermediate doses to organs at risk (OAR), but photon irradiation has its dosimetric advantages. We present two cases with brain tumours, one paediatric and one AYA, in which treatment plan comparison between photons and protons showed dosimetric advantages of photon irradiation. The first case was an 18‐month‐old child diagnosed with posterior fossa ependymoma requiring adjuvant radiotherapy. Photon irradiation using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) had lower doses to the hippocampi but higher doses to the pituitary gland. The second case was a 21‐year‐old with an optic pathway glioma. There was better sparing of the critical optic structures and pituitary gland using fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy over PBT. The dosimetric advantages of photon irradiation over PBT have been demonstrated in these cases. This highlights the role of proton‐to‐photon comparative treatment planning to better understand which patients might benefit from photon irradiation versus PBT. This report describes two paediatric/adolescent and young adult (AYA) brain tumour cases demonstrating the dosimetric advantages of photon irradiation over proton beam therapy. This highlights the role of proton‐to‐photon comparative treatment planning to better understand which patients might benefit from photon irradiation versus proton beam therapy.

Proton‐beam therapy (PBT) is a cutting‐edge radiation therapy modality that is currently not available in Australia. Comparative photon‐proton (CPP) planning is required for the medical treatment overseas programme (MTOP) and will be required for access to PBT in Australia in the future. Comparative planning brings professional development benefits to all members of the radiation therapy team. This service was also created to support future proposals for a PBT facility in Victoria. We report our experience developing an in‐house CPP service at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. A set of resources to support CPP planning was established. Training of relevant staff was undertaken after which an in‐house training programme was developed. A standard protocol for PBT planning parameters was established. All CPP plans were reviewed. Future goals for the CPP planning programme were described. In total, 62 cases were comparatively planned over 54 months. Of these, 60% were paediatric cases, 14% were adolescents and young adults (15–25 years) and 26% were adults. The vast majority (over 75%) of patients comparatively planned required irradiation to the central nervous system including brain and cranio‐spinal irradiation. A variety of proton plans were reviewed by international PBT experts to confirm their deliverability. Our team at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre has gained significant experience in CPP planning and will continue to develop this further. Local expertise will help support decentralisation of patient selection for proton treatments in the near future and the PBT business case in Victoria. Comparative planning brings professional development benefits to all members of the radiation therapy team. This service was also created to support future proposals for a Proton‐beam therapy facility in Victoria. We report our experience developing an in‐house comparative photon‐proton planning service at Peter Mac.

Access to an academic clinical research center (CRC) in health professional shortage areas (HPSA) can help address healthcare disparities and increase research accessibility and enrollment. Here we describe the development of a community-centered CRC in the underserved area of Sunset Park, Brooklyn, New York, centered within a larger academic health network and the evaluation of its outcomes within the first two years. In addition to resources and space, establishment of the CRC required a culturally competent and multilingual team of healthcare professionals and researchers and buy-in from the community. Between 1/2022 and 12/2023, the CRC opened 21 new trials (10 interventional and 11 noninterventional) with greater than 500 participant visits that reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the community. These participants represent 110 distinct zip codes; 76% of these zip codes are underserved and designated HPSA. 60% self-identified as non-White and 20% identified as Hispanic, with 12 other distinct ethnicities represented. 28% of participants speak 11 languages other than English. Community-based CRCs can be created with sustainable growth to align with the mission of the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration to meet the ever-growing clinical, social, and research needs of the communities they serve.