# Proton Beam Therapy in Gynecological Cancers: A Systematic Review of Indications, Complications, and Limitations

## TL;DR

This review examines proton beam therapy for gynecological cancers, finding it may reduce toxicity compared to traditional radiation, but evidence is still limited.

## Contribution

The study systematically reviews the use and complications of proton beam therapy in gynecological cancers, highlighting its potential and limitations.

## Key findings

- Severe toxicity occurred in 15.2% of patients treated with proton beam therapy.
- GI and GU complications were generally low in primary and adjuvant settings but higher in re-irradiation cases.
- Comparative data suggest proton beam therapy may offer advantages over IMRT for GI toxicity.

## Abstract

Background and Objectives: Gynecological cancers frequently require radiation therapy (RT) in primary, adjuvant, or salvage settings. However, photon-based RT is associated with non-negligible toxicity, and treatment of pelvic recurrences after prior irradiation remains challenging. Proton beam therapy (PBT), due to its favorable dose distribution and reduced exposure of organs at risk (OARs), has emerged as a potential alternative, particularly in re-irradiation scenarios. Despite its expanding use in other malignancies, evidence supporting PBT in gynecologic cancers remains limited. This systematic review aims to investigate the use of PBT in gynecological cancers and its associated complications. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. A comprehensive search (2000–2025) identified studies investigating PBT in gynecologic cancers. Eligible designs included randomized trials and prospective and retrospective series. Reported adverse events were categorized as GI, GU, or other, and only grade ≥3 CT-CAE complications were considered. Results: Of 580 records screened, 9 studies comprising 232 patients met inclusion criteria. Most patients were treated for endometrial (n = 147) or cervical (n = 75) cancer; 90 received chemotherapy. Overall, severe toxicity occurred in 15.2% of patients. GI complications ranged from 0–14% and GU from 0–33%. Complication rates were lowest in adjuvant or de novo treatment series (0–10%), whereas re-irradiation cohorts showed higher rates (up to 33% GU). Comparative studies suggested a possible advantage of PBT over IMRT, particularly for GI toxicity, though data remain limited. Conclusions: Severe GI and GU toxicity after PBT in gynecologic cancers appears infrequent, particularly in primary and adjuvant settings, though re-irradiation remains challenging. Current evidence is restricted to small and heterogeneous studies. Ongoing phase II trials will provide prospective data to clarify feasibility, toxicity, and long-term outcomes. Until then, PBT in gynecologic oncology should be regarded as investigational.