Gyu Sang Yoo1, Jeong Il Yu1, Sungkoo Cho2, Sang Hoon Jung2, Youngyih Han1, Seyjoon Park2, Yoonjin Oh2, Boram Lee2, Hee Chul Park3, Do Hoon Lim1, Moon Seok Choi4, Hojeong Won5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: rophc@skku.edu. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 5. Statistics and Data Center, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes and toxicities between passive scattering (PS) proton beam therapy (PBT) and pencil-beam scanning (PBS) PBT for primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The multidisciplinary team for liver cancer identified the PBT candidates who were ineligible for resection or radiofrequency ablation. We retrospectively analyzed 172 patients who received PBT for primary HCC from January 2016 to December 2017. The PS with wobbling method was applied with both breath-hold and regular breathing techniques, while the PBS method was utilized only for regular breathing techniques covering the full amplitude of respiration. To maintain the balance of the variables between the PS and PBS groups, we performed propensity score matching. RESULTS: The median follow-up duration for the total cohort was 14 months (range, 1-31 months). After propensity score matching, a total of 103 patients (70 in the PS group and 33 in the PBS group) were included in analysis. There were no significant differences in the rates of overall survival (OS), in-field local control (IFLC), out-field intrahepatic control (OFIHC), extrahepatic progression-free survival (EHPFS), and complete response (CR) between the matched groups. In the subgroup analyses, no subgroup showed a significant difference in IFLC between the PS and PBS groups. There was also no significant difference in the toxicity profiles between the groups. CONCLUSION: There are no differences in oncologic outcomes, including OS, IFLC, OFIHC, EHPFS, and CR rates, or in the toxicity profiles between PS and PBS PBT for primary HCC.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes and toxicities between passive scattering (PS) proton beam therapy (PBT) and pencil-beam scanning (PBS) PBT for primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The multidisciplinary team for liver cancer identified the PBT candidates who were ineligible for resection or radiofrequency ablation. We retrospectively analyzed 172 patients who received PBT for primary HCC from January 2016 to December 2017. The PS with wobbling method was applied with both breath-hold and regular breathing techniques, while the PBS method was utilized only for regular breathing techniques covering the full amplitude of respiration. To maintain the balance of the variables between the PS and PBS groups, we performed propensity score matching. RESULTS: The median follow-up duration for the total cohort was 14 months (range, 1-31 months). After propensity score matching, a total of 103 patients (70 in the PS group and 33 in the PBS group) were included in analysis. There were no significant differences in the rates of overall survival (OS), in-field local control (IFLC), out-field intrahepatic control (OFIHC), extrahepatic progression-free survival (EHPFS), and complete response (CR) between the matched groups. In the subgroup analyses, no subgroup showed a significant difference in IFLC between the PS and PBS groups. There was also no significant difference in the toxicity profiles between the groups. CONCLUSION: There are no differences in oncologic outcomes, including OS, IFLC, OFIHC, EHPFS, and CR rates, or in the toxicity profiles between PS and PBS PBT for primary HCC.
Authors: Ronik S Bhangoo; Trey C Mullikin; Jonathan B Ashman; Tiffany W Cheng; Michael A Golafshar; Todd A DeWees; Jedediah E Johnson; Satomi Shiraishi; Wei Liu; Yanle Hu; Kenneth W Merrell; Michael G Haddock; Sunil Krishnan; William G Rule; Terence T Sio; Christopher L Hallemeier Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-03-02
Authors: Jana M Kobeissi; Lara Hilal; Charles B Simone; Haibo Lin; Christopher H Crane; Carla Hajj Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-12 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Gyu Sang Yoo; Jeong Il Yu; Sungkoo Cho; Youngyih Han; Yoonjin Oh; Do Hoon Lim; Hee Rim Nam; Ji-Won Lee; Ki-Woong Sung; Hyung Jin Shin Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-10-15 Impact factor: 5.036
Authors: Hwa Kyung Byun; Min Cheol Han; Kyungmi Yang; Jin Sung Kim; Gyu Sang Yoo; Woong Sub Koom; Yong Bae Kim Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 4.679