Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
Proton therapy in Spain: SEOR-SPROMP multidisciplinary recommendations developed through a RAND/UCLA consensus process.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Conde-Moreno Antonio José, Calvo Manuel Felipe Ángel, Diezhandino García Patricia, Celada Álvarez Francisco Javier, de la Fuente Cristina, Romero Zoghbi Sigfredo Elias, Eraso Urién Arantxa, Esteban Moreno David, Fortes de la Torre Inmaculada, López-Campos Fernando, López Guerra José Luis, Ramos Albiac Mónica, Ruiz-Alonso Ana, San Miguel Iñigo, Giralt Jordi
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Compared with conventional photon-based radiotherapy, proton beam therapy (PBT) has distinct dosimetric and biological advantages. Nevertheless, its clinical adoption has been slow, primarily because of restricted accessibility, limited availability and heterogeneous selection criteria.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the appropriateness of PBT across a broad spectrum of oncological scenarios.
METHODS: A RAND/UCLA appropriateness consensus process was conducted through 12 national working groups, each represented by an experienced radiation oncologist and collectively reflecting the expertise of 118 specialists nationwide. The period to complete the full consensus process ended in October 2025. A total of 72 clinical statements covering 13 oncological domains were formulated. Panelists anonymously rated each statement using a 9-point Likert scale (1-3: inappropriate; 4-6: uncertain; 7-9: appropriate).
RESULTS: After a two-round process, 61 statements were retained. Consensus was achieved for all final statements, with robust panelist participation (≥ 11 panelists per statement). Of these, 53 statements were classified as appropriate for the use of PBT, 6 as uncertain, and 2 as inappropriate. Appropriate indications were most commonly identified as pediatric and adolescent oncology, skull base tumors, sarcomas, selected head and neck cancers, re-irradiation scenarios, and anatomically complex cases where a clear dosimetric or clinical benefit was anticipated.
CONCLUSIONS: This national consensus provides an updated comprehensive and structured framework for guiding the appropriate use of PBT in the dynamic context of oncology practice. The resulting recommendations may help to reduce variability in clinical practice, support equitable access, and foster a rational, patient-centered implementation of PBT.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the appropriateness of PBT across a broad spectrum of oncological scenarios.
METHODS: A RAND/UCLA appropriateness consensus process was conducted through 12 national working groups, each represented by an experienced radiation oncologist and collectively reflecting the expertise of 118 specialists nationwide. The period to complete the full consensus process ended in October 2025. A total of 72 clinical statements covering 13 oncological domains were formulated. Panelists anonymously rated each statement using a 9-point Likert scale (1-3: inappropriate; 4-6: uncertain; 7-9: appropriate).
RESULTS: After a two-round process, 61 statements were retained. Consensus was achieved for all final statements, with robust panelist participation (≥ 11 panelists per statement). Of these, 53 statements were classified as appropriate for the use of PBT, 6 as uncertain, and 2 as inappropriate. Appropriate indications were most commonly identified as pediatric and adolescent oncology, skull base tumors, sarcomas, selected head and neck cancers, re-irradiation scenarios, and anatomically complex cases where a clear dosimetric or clinical benefit was anticipated.
CONCLUSIONS: This national consensus provides an updated comprehensive and structured framework for guiding the appropriate use of PBT in the dynamic context of oncology practice. The resulting recommendations may help to reduce variability in clinical practice, support equitable access, and foster a rational, patient-centered implementation of PBT.