BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy with charged particles can potentially deliver maximum doses while minimizing irradiation of surrounding tissues, and it may be more effective or less harmful than other forms of radiation therapy. PURPOSE: To review evidence about the benefits and harms of charged-particle radiation therapy for patients with cancer. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (inception to 11 July 2009) was searched for publications in English, German, French, Italian, and Japanese. Web sites of manufacturers, treatment centers, and professional organizations were searched for relevant information. STUDY SELECTION: Four reviewers identified studies of any design that described clinical outcomes or adverse events in 10 or more patients with cancer treated with charged-particle radiation therapy. DATA EXTRACTION: The 4 reviewers extracted study, patient, and treatment characteristics; clinical outcomes; and adverse events for nonoverlapping sets of articles. A fifth reviewer verified data on comparative studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Currently, 7 centers in the United States have facilities for particle (proton)-beam irradiation, and at least 4 are under construction, each costing between $100 and $225 million. In 243 eligible articles, charged-particle radiation therapy was used alone or in combination with other interventions for common (for example, lung, prostate, or breast) or uncommon (for example, skull-base tumors or uveal melanomas) types of cancer. Of 243 articles, 185 were single-group retrospective studies. Eight randomized and 9 nonrandomized clinical trials compared treatments with or without charged particles. No comparative study reported statistically significant or important differences in overall or cancer-specific survival or in total serious adverse events. LIMITATION: Few studies directly compared treatments with or without particle irradiation. CONCLUSION: Evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of charged-particle radiation therapy in cancer is needed to assess the benefits, risks, and costs of treatment alternatives.
BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy with charged particles can potentially deliver maximum doses while minimizing irradiation of surrounding tissues, and it may be more effective or less harmful than other forms of radiation therapy. PURPOSE: To review evidence about the benefits and harms of charged-particle radiation therapy for patients with cancer. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (inception to 11 July 2009) was searched for publications in English, German, French, Italian, and Japanese. Web sites of manufacturers, treatment centers, and professional organizations were searched for relevant information. STUDY SELECTION: Four reviewers identified studies of any design that described clinical outcomes or adverse events in 10 or more patients with cancer treated with charged-particle radiation therapy. DATA EXTRACTION: The 4 reviewers extracted study, patient, and treatment characteristics; clinical outcomes; and adverse events for nonoverlapping sets of articles. A fifth reviewer verified data on comparative studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Currently, 7 centers in the United States have facilities for particle (proton)-beam irradiation, and at least 4 are under construction, each costing between $100 and $225 million. In 243 eligible articles, charged-particle radiation therapy was used alone or in combination with other interventions for common (for example, lung, prostate, or breast) or uncommon (for example, skull-base tumors or uveal melanomas) types of cancer. Of 243 articles, 185 were single-group retrospective studies. Eight randomized and 9 nonrandomized clinical trials compared treatments with or without charged particles. No comparative study reported statistically significant or important differences in overall or cancer-specific survival or in total serious adverse events. LIMITATION: Few studies directly compared treatments with or without particle irradiation. CONCLUSION: Evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of charged-particle radiation therapy in cancer is needed to assess the benefits, risks, and costs of treatment alternatives.
Authors: Maria Giuseppina Bisogni; Andrea Attili; Giuseppe Battistoni; Nicola Belcari; Niccolo' Camarlinghi; Piergiorgio Cerello; Silvia Coli; Alberto Del Guerra; Alfredo Ferrari; Veronica Ferrero; Elisa Fiorina; Giuseppe Giraudo; Eleftheria Kostara; Matteo Morrocchi; Francesco Pennazio; Cristiana Peroni; Maria Antonietta Piliero; Giovanni Pirrone; Angelo Rivetti; Manuel D Rolo; Valeria Rosso; Paola Sala; Giancarlo Sportelli; Richard Wheadon Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2016-12-02
Authors: Ravi Shukla; Nripen Chanda; Ajit Zambre; Anandhi Upendran; Kavita Katti; Rajesh R Kulkarni; Satish Kumar Nune; Stan W Casteel; Charles Jeffrey Smith; Jatin Vimal; Evan Boote; J David Robertson; Para Kan; Hendrik Engelbrecht; Lisa D Watkinson; Terry L Carmack; John R Lever; Cathy S Cutler; Charles Caldwell; Raghuraman Kannan; Kattesh V Katti Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-07-16 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: I Frank Ciernik; Andrzej Niemierko; David C Harmon; Wendy Kobayashi; Yen-Lin Chen; Torunn I Yock; David H Ebb; Edwin Choy; Kevin A Raskin; Norbert Liebsch; Francis J Hornicek; Thomas F Delaney Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Joe Y Chang; Wencheng Zhang; Ritsuko Komaki; Noah C Choi; Shen Chan; Daniel Gomez; Michael O'Reilly; Melenda Jeter; Michael Gillin; Xiaorong Zhu; Xiaodong Zhang; Radhe Mohan; Stephen Swisher; Stephen Hahn; James D Cox Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-01-28 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Byron C Wallace; Thomas A Trikalinos; Joseph Lau; Carla Brodley; Christopher H Schmid Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 3.169