质子束治疗与调强放射治疗前列腺癌明确放疗后的真实世界比较结果和毒性:一项回顾性、单一机构分析。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 BIOLOGY Journal of Radiation Research Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1093/jrr/rrae065
Yojiro Ishikawa, Motohisa Suzuki, Hisashi Yamaguchi, Ichiro Seto, Masanori Machida, Yoshiaki Takagawa, Yusuke Azami, Yuntao Dai, Nor Shazrina Sulaiman, Satoshi Teramura, Yuki Narita, Takahiro Kato, Yasuyuki Kikuchi, Yasuo Fukaya, Masao Murakami
{"title":"质子束治疗与调强放射治疗前列腺癌明确放疗后的真实世界比较结果和毒性:一项回顾性、单一机构分析。","authors":"Yojiro Ishikawa, Motohisa Suzuki, Hisashi Yamaguchi, Ichiro Seto, Masanori Machida, Yoshiaki Takagawa, Yusuke Azami, Yuntao Dai, Nor Shazrina Sulaiman, Satoshi Teramura, Yuki Narita, Takahiro Kato, Yasuyuki Kikuchi, Yasuo Fukaya, Masao Murakami","doi":"10.1093/jrr/rrae065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT). A total of 606 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 2008 and December 2018 were included. Of these patients, 510 received PBT up to a dose of 70-78 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) and 96 patients received IMRT up to a dose of 70-78 Gy. The median follow-up period was 82 months (range: 32-140 months). Patients in the PBT group had significantly higher 7-year rates of biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates: 95.1% for PBT vs 89.9% for IMRT (P = 0.0271) and 93.1% for PBT vs 85.0% for IMRT (P = 0.0019). After matching analysis, 94 patients were assigned to both groups, and the PBT group showed significantly higher 7-year bRFS and DFS rates: 98.9% for PBT vs 89.7% for IMRT (P = 0.023) and 93.4% for PBT vs 84.6% for IMRT (P = 0.022), respectively. In the subgroup analysis of intermediate-risk patients, the PBT group showed a significantly higher 7-year bRFS rate (98.3% for PBT vs 90.5% for IMRT; P = 0.007). The V60 of the bladder in the PBT group (18.1% ± 10.1%) was higher than that in the IMRT group (14.4% ± 7.6%) (P = 0.024). This study found that the treatment outcomes of PBT potentially surpassed those of IMRT specifically concerning bRFS and DFS in real-world settings. However, it should be noted that attention is warranted for late bladder complication of PBT.</p>","PeriodicalId":16922,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Radiation Research","volume":" ","pages":"39-51"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11753839/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-world comparative outcomes and toxicities after definitive radiotherapy using proton beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a retrospective, single-institutional analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yojiro Ishikawa, Motohisa Suzuki, Hisashi Yamaguchi, Ichiro Seto, Masanori Machida, Yoshiaki Takagawa, Yusuke Azami, Yuntao Dai, Nor Shazrina Sulaiman, Satoshi Teramura, Yuki Narita, Takahiro Kato, Yasuyuki Kikuchi, Yasuo Fukaya, Masao Murakami\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jrr/rrae065\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT). A total of 606 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 2008 and December 2018 were included. Of these patients, 510 received PBT up to a dose of 70-78 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) and 96 patients received IMRT up to a dose of 70-78 Gy. The median follow-up period was 82 months (range: 32-140 months). Patients in the PBT group had significantly higher 7-year rates of biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates: 95.1% for PBT vs 89.9% for IMRT (P = 0.0271) and 93.1% for PBT vs 85.0% for IMRT (P = 0.0019). After matching analysis, 94 patients were assigned to both groups, and the PBT group showed significantly higher 7-year bRFS and DFS rates: 98.9% for PBT vs 89.7% for IMRT (P = 0.023) and 93.4% for PBT vs 84.6% for IMRT (P = 0.022), respectively. In the subgroup analysis of intermediate-risk patients, the PBT group showed a significantly higher 7-year bRFS rate (98.3% for PBT vs 90.5% for IMRT; P = 0.007). The V60 of the bladder in the PBT group (18.1% ± 10.1%) was higher than that in the IMRT group (14.4% ± 7.6%) (P = 0.024). This study found that the treatment outcomes of PBT potentially surpassed those of IMRT specifically concerning bRFS and DFS in real-world settings. However, it should be noted that attention is warranted for late bladder complication of PBT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16922,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Radiation Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"39-51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11753839/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Radiation Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrae065\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Radiation Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrae065","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本回顾性研究旨在比较调强放射治疗(IMRT)和质子束治疗(PBT)的临床结果。在2008年1月至2018年12月期间,共有606名被诊断患有前列腺癌的患者被纳入研究。在这些患者中,510名患者接受了70-78 Gy(相对生物学有效性)剂量的PBT, 96名患者接受了70-78 Gy剂量的IMRT。中位随访期为82个月(范围:32-140个月)。PBT组患者的7年生化无复发生存率(bRFS)和无病生存率(DFS)明显更高:PBT组为95.1%,IMRT组为89.9% (P = 0.0271), PBT组为93.1%,IMRT组为85.0% (P = 0.0019)。配对分析后,94例患者被分配到两组,PBT组的7年bRFS和DFS率显著高于PBT组:PBT组为98.9%,IMRT组为89.7% (P = 0.023), PBT组为93.4%,IMRT组为84.6% (P = 0.022)。在中危患者的亚组分析中,PBT组显示出显著更高的7年bRFS率(PBT组为98.3%,IMRT组为90.5%;p = 0.007)。PBT组膀胱V60(18.1%±10.1%)高于IMRT组(14.4%±7.6%)(P = 0.024)。本研究发现,在现实世界中,PBT的治疗结果可能超过IMRT,特别是在bRFS和DFS方面。然而,应该注意到PBT的晚期膀胱并发症是值得注意的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Real-world comparative outcomes and toxicities after definitive radiotherapy using proton beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a retrospective, single-institutional analysis.

This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT). A total of 606 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 2008 and December 2018 were included. Of these patients, 510 received PBT up to a dose of 70-78 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) and 96 patients received IMRT up to a dose of 70-78 Gy. The median follow-up period was 82 months (range: 32-140 months). Patients in the PBT group had significantly higher 7-year rates of biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates: 95.1% for PBT vs 89.9% for IMRT (P = 0.0271) and 93.1% for PBT vs 85.0% for IMRT (P = 0.0019). After matching analysis, 94 patients were assigned to both groups, and the PBT group showed significantly higher 7-year bRFS and DFS rates: 98.9% for PBT vs 89.7% for IMRT (P = 0.023) and 93.4% for PBT vs 84.6% for IMRT (P = 0.022), respectively. In the subgroup analysis of intermediate-risk patients, the PBT group showed a significantly higher 7-year bRFS rate (98.3% for PBT vs 90.5% for IMRT; P = 0.007). The V60 of the bladder in the PBT group (18.1% ± 10.1%) was higher than that in the IMRT group (14.4% ± 7.6%) (P = 0.024). This study found that the treatment outcomes of PBT potentially surpassed those of IMRT specifically concerning bRFS and DFS in real-world settings. However, it should be noted that attention is warranted for late bladder complication of PBT.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
86
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Radiation Research (JRR) is an official journal of The Japanese Radiation Research Society (JRRS), and the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology (JASTRO). Since its launch in 1960 as the official journal of the JRRS, the journal has published scientific articles in radiation science in biology, chemistry, physics, epidemiology, and environmental sciences. JRR broadened its scope to include oncology in 2009, when JASTRO partnered with the JRRS to publish the journal. Articles considered fall into two broad categories: Oncology & Medicine - including all aspects of research with patients that impacts on the treatment of cancer using radiation. Papers which cover related radiation therapies, radiation dosimetry, and those describing the basis for treatment methods including techniques, are also welcomed. Clinical case reports are not acceptable. Radiation Research - basic science studies of radiation effects on livings in the area of physics, chemistry, biology, epidemiology and environmental sciences. Please be advised that JRR does not accept any papers of pure physics or chemistry. The journal is bimonthly, and is edited and published by the JRR Editorial Committee.
期刊最新文献
Characterization of acrylic phantom for use in quality assurance of BNCT beam output procedure. Cost-effectiveness analysis for multi adverse events of proton beam therapy for pediatric medulloblastoma in Japan. Clinical workload profile of medical physics professionals at particle therapy Centers: a National Survey in Japan. Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation for ventricular tachycardia: a review of clinical trials and emerging roles of imaging. Features of internal absorbed dose microdistribution in biological tissue irradiated by 31SiO2 microparticles compared with dose microdistribution from exposure to 56MnO2 particles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1