Selection of the Most Appropriate Radiation Treatment Modality for Children's Cancers: A Paediatric Radiation Oncology Society (PROS) Position Paper on the Ethical Utilization of Proton Therapy

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Proton beam therapy (PBT) offers dosimetric advantages in pediatric radiotherapy by reducing radiation exposure to healthy tissues. However, broad implementation raises important ethical, logistical, and equity considerations, especially in settings with limited access to advanced technologies. PROCEDURE: This position paper by the Paediatric Radiation Oncology Society (PROS) reviews the clinical rationale for selecting radiotherapy modalities in children, with a specific focus on ethical utilization of PBT. The document synthesizes evidence on the benefits and limitations of modern photon and proton therapies, explores disparities in access, outlines the role of local pediatric radiation oncologists, and addresses the impact of industry-driven messaging on family decision-making. RESULTS: While PBT offers clinical benefit in selecting pediatric cancers, high-quality photon-based treatments such as IMRT and VMAT remain effective and widely accessible alternatives. The referral and evaluation process for PBT is complex and may introduce treatment delays. Travel and financial burdens can exacerbate disparities. PROS underscores the critical role of local pediatric radiation oncologists in counseling families, and calls for balanced, evidence-based communication from providers and industry stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: PROS advocates for an ethical, equitable, and evidence-informed approach to radiotherapy modality selection in children, reflecting holistic considerations beyond dosimetry. Proton therapy should be pursued when clinically indicated and accessible without compromising timely care. Investment in a comprehensive radiation therapy infrastructure, including professional education, collaborative research, and responsible public messaging, is essential to optimize pediatric cancer outcomes globally.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.