| Literature DB >> 31881895 |
Shosei Shimizu1, Toshiyuki Okumura2, Yoshiko Oshiro2, Nobuyoshi Fukumitsu2, Kuniaki Fukuda3, Kazunori Ishige3, Naoyuki Hasegawa3, Haruko Numajiri2, Keiko Murofushi2, Kayoko Ohnishi2, Masashi Mizumoto2, Tetsuo Nonaka2, Hitoshi Ishikawa2, Hideyuki Sakurai2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of proton beam therapy (PBT) as initial treatment for patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is unclear, particularly as related to ICC histological subtypes. We performed this study to address this gap in knowledge.Entities:
Keywords: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Macroscopic type; Proton beam therapy; Survival; Unresectable ICC
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31881895 PMCID: PMC6935160 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1451-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Patient Characteristics (n = 37)
| Curative group( | Palliative group( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Median Age (range) | 68.4 (32–87) | 72 (44–82) | 67 (32–87) |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 22 | 17 | 5 |
| Female | 15 | 8 | 7 |
| Performance status | |||
| 0 | 12 | 11 | 1 |
| 1 | 19 | 13 | 6 |
| 2 | 6 | 1 | 5 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Child-Pugh Classification | |||
| A | 27 | 20 | 7 |
| B | 27 | 5 | 5 |
| Jaundice | |||
| yes | 26 | 21 | 5 |
| no | 11 | 4 | 7 |
| Treatment intent | |||
| Curative | 25 | ||
| Palliative | 12 | ||
| Median size of the tumor (range) (mm) | 57 (15–140) | 44 (15–140) | 60 (22–110) |
| Number of tumor | |||
| single | 27 | 22 | 5 |
| multiple | 10 | 3 | 7 |
| TNM stage (7th UICC) | |||
| I | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| II | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| III | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| IVa | 19 | 15 | 4 |
| IVb | 10 | 3 | 7 |
| T stage | |||
| 1 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| 2a | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| 2b | 5 | 1 | 4 |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | 20 | 14 | 6 |
| N stage | |||
| 0 | 21 | 17 | 4 |
| 1 | 16 | 8 | 8 |
| M stage | |||
| 0 | 27 | 22 | 5 |
| 1 | 10 | 3 | 7 |
| macroscopic subtype | |||
| Mass forming (MF) type | 19 | 13 | 6 |
| Intraductal growth (IG) type | 7 | 4 | 3 |
| Periductal infiltrating (PI) type | 11 | 8 | 3 |
| Total dose | |||
| 66.0 GyE in 10 Fraction (BED*:109.6 Gy) | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 72.6 GyE in 22 Fraction (BED:96.6 Gy) | 21 | 19 | 2 |
| 74.0 GyE in 37 Fraction (BED:88.8 Gy) | 5 | 2 | 3 |
| Other (BED < 88.8Gy) | 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Concurrent chemotherapy | |||
| TS-1 | 15 | 11 | 4 |
| Gemcitabine | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| None | 21 | 13 | 8 |
| Adjuvant Chemotherapy | |||
| TS-1 | 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Cisplatine + Gemcitabine | 5 | 4 | 1 |
| Gemcitabine | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| None | 18 | 11 | 7 |
*BED: biological effective dose (α/β = 10)
Fig. 1Kaplan-Meier curves showing the overall survival of patients who underwent proton beam therapy as primary treatment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. a Overall survival among all patients. b Comparison of overall survival between the curative and palliative groups. (C) Comparison of overall survival among curative-group patients with tumors categorized according to the three macroscopic subtypes. MF: mass forming type, IG: intraductal growth type, PI: periductal infiltrating type
Analysis of prognostic factors on overall survival
| Foctor | Patient number | MST (months) | Univariate analysis | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intent | Curative | 25 | 25 | 0.001 |
| Palliative | 12 | 7 | ||
| Child-Pugh | A | 27 | 25 | 0.004 |
| B | 10 | 9 | ||
| Jaundice | Yes | 11 | 25 | 0.002 |
| No | 26 | 9 | ||
| Lymph node metastases | Yes | 16 | 15 | 0.344 |
| No | 21 | 12 | ||
| Vessel invasion | Yes | 32 | 13 | 0.558 |
| No | 5 | 31 | ||
| Tumor number | multiple | 10 | 9 | 0.272 |
| single | 27 | 21 | ||
| Concurrent chemotherapy | Yes | 16 | 41 | 0.454 |
| No | 21 | 13 | ||
| Adjuvant chemotherapy | Yes | 19 | 49 | 0.000 |
| No | 18 | 10 | ||
Fig. 2Kaplan-Meier curves showing the progression-free survival of patients who underwent proton beam therapy as primary treatment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. a Progression-free survival among all patients. b Comparison of progression-free survival between the curative and palliative groups
Fig. 3Change of CA19–9 (%) from PBT. Percentage (%) of the value prior to PBT was calculated
Fig. 4Kaplan-Meier curves showing local control among patients who underwent proton beam therapy as primary treatment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. a Local control rates among all patients. b Comparison of local control between the curative and palliative groups
Toxicities (n = 37)
| Toxicity | Grade 0 / 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4 / 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acute | ||||
| Dermatitis | 36 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Gastrointestinal ulcer | 34 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Late | ||||
| Gastrointestinal ulcer | 36 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cholangitis | 31 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
Fig. 5Imaging features of a 75-year-old man with a single intrahepatic 70 mm tumor at the caudate lobe who was diagnosed with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. a Computed tomography at diagnosis. b The proton beam therapy dose line. c Six months after proton beam therapy. d Three years after proton beam therapy