Literature DB >> 28182320

Proton beam therapy for bone sarcomas of the skull base and spine: A retrospective nationwide multicenter study in Japan.

Yusuke Demizu1, Masashi Mizumoto2, Tsuyoshi Onoe3, Naoki Nakamura4, Yasuhiro Kikuchi5, Tetsushi Shibata6, Tomoaki Okimoto1, Hideyuki Sakurai2, Tetsuo Akimoto4, Kota Ono7, Takashi Daimon8, Shigeyuki Murayama3.   

Abstract

We conducted a retrospective, nationwide multicenter study to evaluate the clinical outcomes of proton beam therapy for bone sarcomas of the skull base and spine in Japan. Eligibility criteria included: (i) histologically proven bone sarcomas of the skull base or spine; (ii) no metastases; (iii) ≥20 years of age; and (iv) no prior treatment with radiotherapy. Of the 103 patients treated between January 2004 and January 2012, we retrospectively analyzed data from 96 patients who were followed-up for >6 months or had died within 6 months. Seventy-two patients (75.0%) had chordoma, 20 patients (20.8%) had chondrosarcoma, and four patients (7.2%) had osteosarcoma. The most frequent tumor locations included the skull base in 68 patients (70.8%) and the sacral spine in 13 patients (13.5%). Patients received a median total dose of 70.0 Gy (relative biological effectiveness). The median follow-up was 52.6 (range, 6.3-131.9) months. The 5-year overall survival, progression-free survival, and local control rates were 75.3%, 49.6%, and 71.1%, respectively. Performance status was a significant factor for overall survival and progression-free survival, whilst sex was a significant factor for local control. Acute Grade 3 and late toxicities of ≥Grade 3 were observed in nine patients (9.4%) each (late Grade 4 toxicities [n = 3 patients; 3.1%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Proton beam therapy is safe and effective for the treatment of bone sarcomas of the skull base and spine in Japan. However, larger prospective studies with a longer follow-up are warranted.
© 2017 The Authors. Cancer Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Multicenter study; proton beam therapy; sarcoma; skull base; spine

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28182320      PMCID: PMC5448607          DOI: 10.1111/cas.13192

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Sci        ISSN: 1347-9032            Impact factor:   6.716


biologically effective dose, alpha/beta ratio of 10.0 Gy bone sarcoma confidence interval chondrosarcoma local control overall survival proton beam therapy progression‐free survival performance status relative biological effectiveness skull base Bone sarcomas (BSs) are extremely rare, accounting for <0.2% of newly diagnosed malignant tumors in the United States each year.1 The primary definitive treatment for BSs is surgical resection. However, BSs of the skull base (SB) and spine are often difficult to resect completely. Radiotherapy is an option for unresectable or partially resectable tumors, although the majority of BSs are resistant to conventional photon radiotherapy. Therefore, photon radiotherapy has traditionally been used in a neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting.2, 3 The efficacy of proton beam therapy (PBT) for BSs (primarily chordomas and chondrosarcomas [CSs]) of the SB and spine has been reported since the 1980s.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 Photons emit maximal energy near the body surface; this energy gradually decreases at deeper points in the body. In contrast, charged particles (e.g., protons and carbon ions) deposit a relatively low‐dose near the body surface and emit their maximum energy just before they stop inside the body (the Bragg peak effect). The Bragg peak effect may be spread out according to the location and size of the tumor,29, 30 making it possible to deliver high‐dose radiation to the tumor, whilst limiting the dose delivered to the organs at risk. The biological effects of protons are almost identical to the biological effects of photons (relative biological effectiveness [RBE], 1.1).31 Much evidence concerning the effectiveness of PBT for BSs of the SB and spine has been reported from Western countries, whereas only a limited number of small studies7, 17, 22, 28 have been published from Japan, even Asia. As of March 2012, six PBT centers treated BSs in Japan since. These include the Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, University of Tsukuba, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Southern Tohoku General Hospital, and Fukui Prefectural Hospital. We conducted a retrospective, nationwide multicenter study to evaluate the clinical outcomes of PBT for BSs of the SB and spine in Japan.

Materials and Methods

Study design and patients

We conducted a retrospective, nationwide multicenter study across six PBT centers in Japan. All patients provided written informed consent. The study protocol was approved by the appropriate Institutional Review Board committee of each center. Research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013). Eligibility criteria included: (i) histologically proven BSs of the SB or spine; (ii) no metastases; (iii) ≥20 years of age; and (iv) no previous radiotherapy. Of the 103 patients treated between January 2004 and January 2012, we retrospectively analyzed data from 96 patients (93.2%) who were followed‐up for >6 months or had died within 6 months. The representative PBT planning procedure was as follows. Radiation treatments were planned using a computed tomography‐based three‐dimensional treatment planning system. Each patient was immobilized using a custom‐made thermoplastic cast and computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were performed. The target volumes and organs at risk were delineated on computed tomography‐magnetic resonance imaging fusion images. The clinical target volume was defined as the gross tumor volume plus a 5.0‐mm basic margin, and the adjacent structures were included in selected patients. The planning target volume was defined as the clinical target volume plus a setup margin and an internal margin where necessary. The reported dose of PBT was calculated by multiplying the physical dose by the RBE of the protons (1.1). Since various dose fractionations were adopted, the antitumor effects of PBT were compared on the basis of a biologically effective dose, alpha/beta ratio of 10.0 Gy (BED10). It is important to note that although the alpha/beta ratios for BSs may be <10.0 Gy, the precise alpha/beta ratios for chordomas, CSs, and osteosarcomas have yet to be determined. Therefore, we adopted an alpha/beta ratio of 10.0 Gy that has been commonly used for antitumor effects. BED10 was calculated as follows: The following are examples of dose constraints in a 32‐fraction protocol: brainstem, optic nerve, and spinal cord (cauda equina not included), maximum dose of ≤48.0 Gy (RBE); small intestine, maximum dose of ≤52.0 Gy (RBE); large intestine, maximum dose of ≤57.0 Gy (RBE); and rectum, volume receiving ≥65.0 Gy (RBE) of ≤17.0% and volume receiving ≥40.0 Gy (RBE) of ≤35.0%. Representative treatment plans for PBT in patients with BSs of the SB and spine are represented in Fig. 1.
Figure 1

Representative treatment plans for proton beam therapy in (a) a 45‐year‐old female with skull base chordoma (65.0 Gy [relative biological effectiveness] delivered in 26 fractions) and (b) a 53‐year‐old female with sacral chordoma (70.4 Gy [relative biological effectiveness] delivered in 32 fractions).

Representative treatment plans for proton beam therapy in (a) a 45‐year‐old female with skull base chordoma (65.0 Gy [relative biological effectiveness] delivered in 26 fractions) and (b) a 53‐year‐old female with sacral chordoma (70.4 Gy [relative biological effectiveness] delivered in 32 fractions). Toxicities were evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.

Statistical analyses

Continuous variables are presented as medians and ranges and categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages. Overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and local control (LC) curves were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared by the log‐rank test. Variables with a P < 0.05 from the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis, using a Cox proportional hazards model. All statistical analyses were conducted using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows, software version 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). A two‐sided P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patients

Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Seventy‐two patients (75.0%) had chordoma, 20 patients (20.8%) had CS, and four patients (4.2%) had osteosarcoma. The most frequent tumor location was the SB in 68 patients (70.8%), followed by the sacral spine in 13 patients (13.6%). Therefore, the most frequent combinations of histological subtypes and tumor locations were chordoma of the SB (n = 53 patients; 55.2%), CS of the SB (n = 15 patients; 15.6%), and chordoma of the sacrum (n = 12 patients; 2.5%). Pre‐PBT, 68 patients (70.8%) underwent surgical resection. Fifty‐five (80.9%) of 68 patients with a tumor of the SB and 11 (73.3%) of 15 patients with a tumor of the spine underwent surgical resection, whereas only two (15.4%) of 13 patients with a tumor of the sacrum underwent surgical resection. Four patients (4.2%; osteosarcoma [n = 2 patients], CS [n = 1 patient], and chordoma [n = 1 patient]) received chemotherapy pre‐PBT.
Table 1

Patient characteristics

CharacteristicPatients (n = 96)
Age, years
Median (range)56 (20–80)
<6055 (57.3)
≥6041 (42.7)
Sex, n (%)
M51 (53.1)
F45 (46.9)
PS, n (%)
039 (40.6)
150 (52.1)
25 (5.2)
32 (2.1)
Histological subtype, n (%)
CH72 (75.0)
CS20 (20.8)
OSA4 (4.2)
Tumor location, n (%)
SB68 (70.8)
Cervical spine8 (8.3)
Lumbar spine5 (5.2)
Lumbosacral spine2 (2.1)
Sacral spine13 (13.6)
Tumor status, n (%)
Primary73 (76.0)
Recurrent23 (24.0)
Surgery, n (%)
Pre‐PBT68 (70.8)
Post‐PBT2 (2.1)
None26 (27.1)
Chemotherapy, n (%)
Pre‐PBT4 (4.2)
Post‐PBT0 (0.0)
None92 (95.8)
PTV, mL
Median (range)72 (9–1,984)
≤7048 (50.0)
>7048 (50.0)
Radiotherapy, n (%)
PBT alone93 (96.9)
PBT + photon radiotherapy3 (3.1)
Total dose, Gy (RBE)a
Median (range)70 (50–84)
≤7050 (52.1)
>7046 (47.9)
BED10, Gy (RBE)a
Median (range)86 (60–103)
≤8549 (51.0)
>8547 (49.0)

The sums of the photon dose/BED10 and proton dose/BED10 were used for patients treated with PBT + photon radiotherapy.

BED10, biologically effective dose, alpha/beta = 10 Gy; CH, chordoma; CS, chondrosarcoma; F, female; M, male; OSA, osteosarcoma; PBT, proton beam therapy; PS, performance status; PTV, planning target volume; RBE, relative biological effectiveness; SB, skull base.

Patient characteristics The sums of the photon dose/BED10 and proton dose/BED10 were used for patients treated with PBT + photon radiotherapy. BED10, biologically effective dose, alpha/beta = 10 Gy; CH, chordoma; CS, chondrosarcoma; F, female; M, male; OSA, osteosarcoma; PBT, proton beam therapy; PS, performance status; PTV, planning target volume; RBE, relative biological effectiveness; SB, skull base. Patients received a median total dose of 70.0 Gy (RBE) (BED10, 86.0 Gy [RBE]). Three patients (3.1%) were treated with combined PBT and photon radiotherapy (12.5–44.0 Gy in 5–22 fractions). Accelerated hyperfractionation (60.5–77.4 Gy [RBE] in 50–64 fractions, twice daily) was administered to 20 patients (20.8%).

Survival and local control

The median follow‐up was 52.6 (range, 6.3–131.9) months. The 5‐year OS, PFS, and LC rates for all 96 patients were 75.3% (95.0% confidence interval [CI]: 65.7%–84.9%), 49.6% (95.0% CI: 38.6%–60.6%), and 71.1% (95.0% CI: 60.1%–82.1%), respectively (Fig. 2, 3). The 5‐year OS, PFS, and LC rates for chordoma patients (n = 72) were 75.5% (95.0% CI: 63.9%–87.1%), 45.6% (95.0% CI: 32.7%–58.5%), and 68.4% (95.0% CI: 55.1%–81.7%), respectively. The 5‐year OS, PFS, and LC rates for CS patients (n = 20) were 83.5% (95.0% CI: 66.3%–100.0%), 72.2% (95.0% CI: 51.2%–93.2%), and 82.2% (95.0% CI: 63.8%–100.0%), respectively. The 5‐year OS, PFS, and LC rates for patients with tumors of the SB (n = 68) were 77.6% (95.0% CI: 66.6%–88.6%), 57.0% (95.0% CI: 44.3%–69.7%), and 76.2% (95.0% CI: 64.4%–88.0%), respectively. The 5‐year OS, PFS, and LC rates for patients with tumors of the spine (n = 28) were 70.7% (95.0% CI: 51.7%–89.7%), 30.7% (95.0% CI: 11.1%–50.3%), and 55.6% (95.0% CI: 30.3%–80.9%), respectively. The 5‐year OS, PFS, and LC rates for patients with chordoma of the SB (n = 53) were 74.6% (95.0% CI: 61.3%–87.9%), 52.8% (95.0% CI: 38.1%–67.5%), and 73.8% (95.0% CI: 59.9%–87.7%), respectively.
Figure 2

Kaplan–Meier curve of overall survival (OS) for all 96 patients with bone sarcoma of the skull base and spine.

Figure 3

Kaplan–Meier curves of local control (LC) and progression‐free survival (PFS) for all 96 patients with bone sarcoma of the skull base and spine.

Kaplan–Meier curve of overall survival (OS) for all 96 patients with bone sarcoma of the skull base and spine. Kaplan–Meier curves of local control (LC) and progression‐free survival (PFS) for all 96 patients with bone sarcoma of the skull base and spine. During follow‐up, 27 (28.1%) and 19 patients (19.8%) experienced local (in‐field) or regional/distant (out‐of‐field) recurrences, respectively. Frequent sites of out‐of‐field recurrence included regional (n = 8 patients; 8.3%) and bone metastases (n = 4 patients; 4.2%). A performance status (PS) of 0–1 was associated with a significantly longer OS (log‐rank test, P < 0.001; Table 2). PS (0–1; P < 0.001), tumor location (SB; P = 0.019), and planning target volume (≤70.0 mL; P = 0.026) were associated with a significantly longer PFS, while female sex was associated with a significantly improved LC rate (P = 0.041). Histological subtype, surgery, and BED10 were not associated with OS, PFS, or LC.
Table 2

Log‐rank test results

VariablePatients (n = 96) P‐value
OSPFSLC
Age, years
<6055
≥60410.1670.4550.380
Sex
M51
F450.6060.4550.041a
PS
0–189
2–37<0.001a <0.001a 0.066
Histological subtype
CH72
Other240.7730.1940.169
Tumor location
SB68
Spine280.5240.019a 0.176
Tumor status
Primary73
Recurrent230.3930.0770.067
Surgery
Pre‐PBT68
Post‐PBT/none280.2410.5370.971
Chemotherapy
Pre‐PBT4
Post‐PBT/none920.0650.1170.880
PTV, mL
≤7048
>70480.0560.026a 0.154
Radiotherapy
PBT alone93
PBT + photon radiotherapy30.2800.1450.193
BED10, Gy (RBE)
≤8549
>85470.2500.2400.637

P < 0.05.

BED10, biologically effective dose, alpha/beta = 10 Gy; CH, chordoma; F, female; LC, local control; M, male; OS, overall survival; PBT, proton beam therapy; PFS, progression‐free survival; PS, performance status; PTV, planning target volume; RBE, relative biological effectiveness; SB, skull base.

Log‐rank test results P < 0.05. BED10, biologically effective dose, alpha/beta = 10 Gy; CH, chordoma; F, female; LC, local control; M, male; OS, overall survival; PBT, proton beam therapy; PFS, progression‐free survival; PS, performance status; PTV, planning target volume; RBE, relative biological effectiveness; SB, skull base. The Cox proportional hazards model revealed that only a PS of 0–1 was associated with a significantly longer PFS (P < 0.001), whilst tumor location (SB) exhibited a trend towards a longer PFS (P = 0.053; Table 3).
Table 3

Cox proportional hazards model results

CovariatePatients (n = 96)PFS
95% CI P‐value
PS
0–189
2–370.071–0.441<0.001a
Tumor location
SB68
Spine280.992–3.2830.053
PTV, mL
≤7048
>70480.890–2.8590.116

P < 0.05.

CI, confidence interval; PFS, progression‐free survival; PS, performance status; PTV, planning target volume; SB, skull base.

Cox proportional hazards model results P < 0.05. CI, confidence interval; PFS, progression‐free survival; PS, performance status; PTV, planning target volume; SB, skull base.

Toxicities

Grade 3 acute toxicities occurred in nine patients (9.4%). The most frequent toxicity was dermatitis in four patients (4.2%). All patients completed the planned radiotherapy and subsequently recovered from their reactions. No acute toxicities of ≥Grade 4 occurred. Late toxicities of ≥Grade 3 occurred in nine patients (9.4%). Grade 3 late toxicities included musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders in three patients (3.1%; deformity [n = 2] and necrosis [n = 1]), eye disorders in one patient (1.0%; blurred vision and pain), middle ear inflammation in one patient (1.0%), and pain in one patient (1.0%). Grade 4 late toxicities included tissue necrosis in two patients (2.1%) and a brainstem infarction in one patient (1.0%). The patient suffering from a brainstem infarction received a high‐dose (maximum, 65.3 Gy [RBE] with a mean of 46.7 Gy [RBE]) to the brainstem. No treatment‐related deaths occurred.

Discussion

Our study is the first to evaluate PBT for BSs of the SB and spine on a nationwide multicenter basis in Japan. To the best of our knowledge, this study comprises the largest cohort of patients among reports published from Asia. Our findings are promising given that BSs of the SB and spine are difficult to resect completely. Recently, reports regarding particle therapy, including PBT and carbon ion radiotherapy,32, 33, 34, 35, 36 for BSs of the SB and/or spine have been increasing rapidly, especially between 2014 and 2016. The results of recent studies, from 2011 to 2016, are summarized in Table 4. With respect to histological subtype, CS patients were generally associated with more favorable outcomes compared to chordoma patients. Weber et al.25 demonstrated in a multivariate analysis that CS patients had a significantly improved OS and LC rate compared to chordoma patients. In our study, histological subtype was not a significant factor for OS, PFS, or LC. Regarding the comparison between PBT and carbon ion radiotherapy, there appears to be no apparent differences between these two treatment modalities. Mima et al.22 published the results of particle therapy using carbon ions or protons as a definitive treatment for primary sacral chordoma patients and reported that there were no significant differences between the two ion types. Although a randomized controlled trial is needed to validate this finding, a German group is conducting a phase II trial of PBT and carbon ion radiotherapy for chordomas of the SB, CSs of the SB, and sacrococcygeal chordomas.37, 38, 39
Table 4

Recent studies of particle therapy for bone sarcomas of the skull base and/or spine

Author(s)YearPatientsHistological subtypeTumor locationTherapyOSLC
Staab et al.18 201140CHSpineP ± X ± S80% (5y)62% (5y)
Fuji et al. 17 201116CH/CSSBP ± S100%100% (CH), 86% (CS) (3y)
Matsumoto et al. 32 201347CH/CS/OSA/OtherSpineC ± S52% (5y)79% (5y)
Uhl et al. 33 2014155CHSBC ± S85% (5y)72% (5y)
Uhl et al. 34 201479CSSBC ± S96% (5y)88% (5y)
DeLaney et al. 20 201450CH/CS/OtherSpineX + P ± S84% (5y)81% (5y)
Deraniyagala et al. 21 201433CHSBP ± S92% (2y)86% (2y)
Mima et al. 22 201423CHSacrumC or P83% (3y)94% (3y)
Rotondo et al. 23 2015126CHSpineX + P ± S81% (5y)62% (5y)
Uhl et al. 35 201556CHSacrumC ± IMRT52% (5y)79% (5y)
Holliday et al. 24 201519CH/CSSpineS + P93% (2y)58% (2y)
Weber et al. 25 2016222CH/CSSBS + P86% (5y)81% (5y)
Imai et al. 36 2016188CHSacrumC81% (5y)77% (5y)
Feuvret et al. 26 2016159CSSBS + P96% (5y)95% (5y)
Indelicato et al. 27 201651CH/CSSpineP ± S72% (4y)58% (4y)
Hayashi et al. 28 201619CHSBS + P83% (5y)75% (5y)
Current study201696CH/CS/OSASB, SpineP ± S75% (5y)71% (5y)

C, carbon ion; CH, chordoma; CS, chondrosarcoma; IMRT, intensity modulated radiotherapy; LC, local control; OS, overall survival; OSA, osteosarcoma; P, proton; S, surgery; SB, skull base; X, photon; y, year.

Recent studies of particle therapy for bone sarcomas of the skull base and/or spine C, carbon ion; CH, chordoma; CS, chondrosarcoma; IMRT, intensity modulated radiotherapy; LC, local control; OS, overall survival; OSA, osteosarcoma; P, proton; S, surgery; SB, skull base; X, photon; y, year. In the present study, univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that a PS of 0–1 was associated with a significantly longer OS (P < 0.001) and PFS (P < 0.001), whereas female sex was associated with a significantly improved LC rate (P = 0.041). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report to identify PS as a significant prognostic factor, although most previously published reports did not include PS as a variable in the prognostic analyses. The statistical significance of PS may be due to chance alone since it was highly unbalanced between the two groups (0–1: n = 89 vs. 2–3: n = 7). However, it is logical that PS would affect survival. Staab et al.18 and Mima et al.22 reported that male chordoma patients had a significantly longer OS and PFS than female chordoma patients. Conversely, in the present study comprising 72 chordoma patients (75.0%), female sex was associated with a significantly improved LC rate. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the possible influence of sex on the treatment outcome of chordoma patients, as reviewed by Halperin.40 For instance, sex hormone receptors may represent an influential factor in adult chordoma patients and genetic factors may also play a role in determining clinical outcomes. Although not statistically significant overall, a planning target volume of ≤70.0 mL was associated with a significantly longer PFS in the univariate analysis (P = 0.026), but not the multivariate analysis (P = 0.116), and exhibited a trend towards a longer OS (P = 0.056). Several other studies11, 15, 18, 25, 41 have demonstrated that tumor volume is a significant prognostic factor. Proton beam therapy‐related acute and late toxicities appeared to be tolerable. Grade 3 acute toxicities were reversible and did not influence treatment schedules. Nine patients (9.4%) experienced ≥Grade 3 late toxicities with a median follow‐up of 52.6 months. However, the tumors were close to the affected organs and the events were considered to be unavoidable in all cases. Grade 4 brainstem infarction occurred in a patient with CS of the SB. Information concerning radiation‐associated toxicities is very limited in the literature, most probably because most published series are retrospective studies that extend back several decades to accumulate an adequate number of patients. In such a scenario, two long‐term studies of PBT for BSs of the SB or spine20, 25 have been published. DeLaney et al.20 reported Grade 3/4 late toxicities in 10.0% and 13.0% of spinal chordoma, CS, and other sarcoma patients at 5 and 8 years, respectively, whereas Weber et al.25 reported Grade 3/4 late toxicities in 8.1% of SB chordoma and CS patients with a median follow‐up of 50.0 months. Our results are comparable with the findings of these two studies. Despite high doses to treatment volumes, accompanying toxicities were relatively low, even though the majority of tumors were located in regions adjacent to the organs at risk (i.e., the brainstem, optic nerve, and spinal cord), because the precise dose distribution of PBT could limit doses to critical structures. This study has three important limitations. The foremost are its retrospective design and the relatively low impact of the statistical analyses. However, many previously published studies have also used a retrospective design, which is likely related to the difficulty of performing a prospective study given the rarity of the disease. Second, the follow‐up period was relatively short (median, 52.6 months) and the major histological subtypes (chordoma and CS) in this study are slow growing with the potential for recurrence 5 years post‐PBT. Therefore, we will continue to monitor these patients with the intention of being able to report on follow‐up data. Finally, PS was highly unbalanced between the two groups (0–1: n = 89 vs. 2–3: n = 7), and thus, the statistical significance of this variable may have occurred by chance alone. However, we identified no biased estimates with unstable standard errors in our multivariate analysis. In conclusion, we are the first to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of PBT for BSs of the SB and spine in a retrospective, nationwide multicenter study in Japan. Larger prospective studies with a longer follow‐up are required to validate these findings.

Disclosure Statement

The authors have no conflict of interest.
  42 in total

1.  A compact ridge filter for spread out Bragg peak production in pulsed proton clinical beams.

Authors:  V Kostjuchenko; D Nichiporov; V Luckjashin
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Ridge filter design for proton therapy at Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center.

Authors:  Takashi Akagi; Akio Higashi; Hironobu Tsugami; Hidenobu Sakamoto; Yasutaka Masuda; Yoshio Hishikawa
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2003-11-21       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Influence of Residual Tumor Volume and Radiation Dose Coverage in Outcomes for Clival Chordoma.

Authors:  Mark W McDonald; Okechukwu R Linton; Michael G Moore; Jonathan Y Ting; Aaron A Cohen-Gadol; Mitesh V Shah
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Carbon ion beam treatment in patients with primary and recurrent sacrococcygeal chordoma.

Authors:  Matthias Uhl; Thomas Welzel; Alexandra Jensen; Malte Ellerbrock; Thomas Haberer; Oliver Jäkel; Klaus Herfarth; Jürgen Debus
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 3.621

5.  Chordomas of the base of the skull and upper cervical spine. One hundred patients irradiated by a 3D conformal technique combining photon and proton beams.

Authors:  Georges Noël; Loic Feuvret; Valentin Calugaru; Frederic Dhermain; Hamid Mammar; Christine Haie-Méder; Dominique Ponvert; Dominique Hasboun; Régis Ferrand; Catherine Nauraye; Gilbert Boisserie; Anne Beaudré; Geneviève Gaboriaud; Alexandre Mazal; Jean-Louis Habrand; Jean-Jacques Mazeron
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.089

Review 6.  Clinical results of proton beam therapy for skull base chordoma.

Authors:  Hiroshi Igaki; Koichi Tokuuye; Toshiyuki Okumura; Shinji Sugahara; Kenji Kagei; Masaharu Hata; Kiyoshi Ohara; Takayuki Hashimoto; Koji Tsuboi; Shingo Takano; Akira Matsumura; Yasuyuki Akine
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-11-15       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Proton therapy for reirradiation of progressive or recurrent chordoma.

Authors:  Mark W McDonald; Okechuckwu R Linton; Mitesh V Shah
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Impact of carbon ion radiotherapy for primary spinal sarcoma.

Authors:  Keiji Matsumoto; Reiko Imai; Tadashi Kamada; Katsuya Maruyama; Hiroshi Tsuji; Hirohiko Tsujii; Yoshiyuki Shioyama; Hiroshi Honda; Kazuo Isu
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Highly effective treatment of skull base chordoma with carbon ion irradiation using a raster scan technique in 155 patients: first long-term results.

Authors:  Matthias Uhl; Matthias Mattke; Thomas Welzel; Falk Roeder; Jan Oelmann; Gregor Habl; Alexandra Jensen; Malte Ellerbrock; Oliver Jäkel; Thomas Haberer; Klaus Herfarth; Jürgen Debus
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Randomised trial of proton vs. carbon ion radiation therapy in patients with low and intermediate grade chondrosarcoma of the skull base, clinical phase III study.

Authors:  Anna V Nikoghosyan; Geraldine Rauch; Marc W Münter; Alexandra D Jensen; Stephanie E Combs; Meinhard Kieser; Jürgen Debus
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2010-11-05       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  Advances in the management of primary bone sarcomas of the skull base.

Authors:  Idara Edem; Franco DeMonte; Shaan M Raza
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2020-04-18       Impact factor: 4.130

2.  Systematic Review Comparing Open versus Endoscopic Surgery in Clival Chordomas and a 10-Year Single-Center Experience.

Authors:  Asfand Baig Mirza; Visagan Ravindran; Mohamed Okasha; Timothy Martyn Boardman; Eleni Maratos; Barazi Sinan; Nick Thomas
Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base       Date:  2021-02-22

Review 3.  Proton therapy for brain tumours in the area of evidence-based medicine.

Authors:  Damien C Weber; Pei S Lim; Sebastien Tran; Marc Walser; Alessandra Bolsi; Ulrike Kliebsch; Jürgen Beer; Barbara Bachtiary; Tony Lomax; Alessia Pica
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-05-20       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Proton beam therapy for bone sarcomas of the skull base and spine: A retrospective nationwide multicenter study in Japan.

Authors:  Yusuke Demizu; Masashi Mizumoto; Tsuyoshi Onoe; Naoki Nakamura; Yasuhiro Kikuchi; Tetsushi Shibata; Tomoaki Okimoto; Hideyuki Sakurai; Tetsuo Akimoto; Kota Ono; Takashi Daimon; Shigeyuki Murayama
Journal:  Cancer Sci       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 6.716

5.  Prospective study to evaluate the safety of the world-first spot-scanning dedicated, small 360-degree gantry, synchrotron-based proton beam therapy system.

Authors:  Kentaro Nishioka; Anussara Prayongrat; Kota Ono; Shunsuke Onodera; Takayuki Hashimoto; Norio Katoh; Tetsuya Inoue; Rumiko Kinoshita; Koichi Yasuda; Takashi Mori; Rikiya Onimaru; Hiroki Shirato; Shinichi Shimizu
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 2.724

6.  Treatment outcomes of proton or carbon ion therapy for skull base chordoma: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Masaru Takagi; Yusuke Demizu; Fumiko Nagano; Kazuki Terashima; Osamu Fujii; Dongcun Jin; Masayuki Mima; Yasue Niwa; Kuniaki Katsui; Masaki Suga; Tomohiro Yamashita; Takashi Akagi; Koh-Ichi Sakata; Nobukazu Fuwa; Tomoaki Okimoto
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 3.481

Review 7.  Technological Advancements in External Beam Radiation Therapy (EBRT): An Indispensable Tool for Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Krishna Koka; Amit Verma; Bilikere S Dwarakanath; Rao V L Papineni
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2022-04-11       Impact factor: 3.602

Review 8.  Systemic treatment for primary malignant sarcomas arising in craniofacial bones.

Authors:  Stefan S Bielack
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 5.738

9.  Dramatic Response of a Large Sacral Chordoma to Intensity Modulated Proton Beam Therapy.

Authors:  Craig Schneider; Melissa Vyfhuis; Emily Morse; Tejan Diwanji; James W Snider; Sina Mossahebi; Katarina Steacy; Robert Malyapa
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2017-09-10
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.