Dataset Information

Flourish of Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy in China.

ABSTRACT: Proton and heavy ion therapy offer superior relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in the treatment of deep-seated tumors compared with conventional photon radiotherapy due to its Bragg-peak feature of energy deposition in organs. Many proton and carbon ion therapy centers are active all over the world. At present, five particle radiotherapy institutes have been built and are receiving patient in China, mainly including Wanjie Proton Therapy Center (WPTC), Shanghai Proton Heavy Ion Center (SPHIC), Heavy Ion Cancer Treatment Center (HIMM), Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH), and Ruijin Hospital affiliated with Jiao Tong University. Many cancer patients have benefited from ion therapy, showing unique advantages over surgery and chemotherapy. By the end of 2020, nearly 8,000 patients had been treated with proton, carbon ion or carbon ion combined with proton therapy. So far, there is no systemic review for proton and carbon ion therapy facility and clinical outcome in China. We reviewed the development of proton and heavy ion therapy, as well as providing the representative clinical data and future directions for particle therapy in China. It has important guiding significance for the design and construction of new particle therapy center and patients' choice of treatment equipment.

SUBMITTER: Li Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8882681 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Flourish of Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy in China.

Li Yue Y Li Xiaoman X Yang Jiancheng J Wang Sicheng S Tang Meitang M Xia Jiawen J Gao Yunzhe Y

Frontiers in oncology 20220214

Proton and heavy ion therapy offer superior relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in the treatment of deep-seated tumors compared with conventional photon radiotherapy due to its Bragg-peak feature of energy deposition in organs. Many proton and carbon ion therapy centers are active all over the world. At present, five particle radiotherapy institutes have been built and are receiving patient in China, mainly including Wanjie Proton Therapy Center (WPTC), Shanghai Proton Heavy Ion Center (SPHI ...[more]

PMID: 35237518

Similar Datasets

Project description:To compare the efficacy and toxicity of adjuvant proton beam vs. carbon-ion beam radiotherapy for head and neck cancers after radical resection and to explore the value of particle beam radiotherapy (PBRT) in postoperative radiotherapy for head and neck cancers. Data from 38 head and neck cancer patients who received adjuvant PBRT after complete surgical resection at the Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center (SPHIC) between October 2015 and March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. In total, 18 patients received adjuvant proton beam therapy (54-60 GyE/27-30 fractions) and 20 received adjuvant carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) (54-60 GyE/18-20 fractions). Survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Toxicity was evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects (version 4.03). With a median follow-up time of 21 (range, 3-45) months, the 2-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), local-regional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 93.3%, 87.4%, 94.1%, and 90.7%, respectively, for the entire cohort. The rates after proton beam therapy vs. CIRT were 94.1% vs. 91.7% (P=0.96), 88.1% vs. 86.2% (P=0.96), 94.4% vs. 93.3% (P=0.97), and 88.1% vs. 92.9% (P=0.57), respectively. Furthermore, 16 of the 18 (88.9%) patients developed acute grade I/II dermatitis (13 grade I; 3 grade II) after proton beam therapy, and only 7 of the 20 (35%) patients developed acute grade I dermatitis after CIRT (P=0.001). The incidence of acute grade I/II mucositis and xerostomia in proton and carbon ion cases were 45% vs. 55% (P=0.75) and 56% vs. 50% (P=0.87) respectively. Adjuvant proton beam therapy and CIRT after radical surgical resection for head and neck cancers provided satisfactory therapeutic effectiveness, but no significant difference was observed between the two radiotherapy technologies. However, adjuvant CIRT was associated with a more favorable acute toxicity profile as compared to proton beam therapy with significantly lower frequency and severity of acute dermatitis observed.

Project description:BackgroundCarbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are promising methods for prostate cancer, however, the consensus of an increasing number of studies has not been reached. We aimed to provide systematic evidence for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer by comparing photon radiotherapy.Materials and methodsWe searched for studies focusing on CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer in four online databases until July 2021. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of included studies and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of evidence. R 4.0.2 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. A meta-regression test was performed based on the study design and tumor stage of each study.ResultsA total of 33 studies including 13 CIRT- and 20 PBT-related publications, involving 54,101, participants were included. The quality of the included studies was found to be either low or moderate quality. Random model single-arm meta-analysis showed that both the CIRT and PBT have favorable efficacy and safety, with similar 5-year overall survival (OS) (94 vs 92%), the incidence of grade 2 or greater acute genitourinary (AGU) toxicity (5 vs 13%), late genitourinary (LGU) toxicity (4 vs 5%), acute gastrointestinal (AGI) toxicity (1 vs 1%), and late gastrointestinal (LGI) toxicity (2 vs 4%). However, compared with CIRT and PBT, photon radiotherapy was associated with lower 5-year OS (72-73%) and a higher incidence of grade 2 or greater AGU (28-29%), LGU (13-14%), AGI (14-19%), and LGI toxicity (8-10%). The meta-analysis showed the 3-, 4-, and 5-year local control rate (LCR) of CIRT for prostate cancer was 98, 97, and 99%; the 3-, 4-, 5-, and 8-year biochemical relapse-free rate (BRF) was 92, 91, 89, and 79%. GRADE assessment results indicated that the certainty of the evidence was very low. Meta-regression results did not show a significant relationship based on the variables studied (P<0.05).ConclusionsCurrently available evidence demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer were similar, and they may significantly improve the OS, LCR, and reduce the incidence of GU and GI toxicity compared with photon radiotherapy. However, the quantity and quality of the available evidence are insufficient. More high-quality controlled studies are needed in the future.

Dataset Information

Flourish of Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy in China.

Publications

Flourish of Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy in China.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets