| Literature DB >> 32280819 |
Shigeo Yasuda1,2, Hirotoshi Kato3, Hiroshi Imada4, Yuka Isozaki1, Goro Kasuya1, Hirokazu Makishima1, Hiroshi Tsuji1, Daniel K Ebner5, Shigeru Yamada1, Tadashi Kamada1,6, Hirohiko Tsujii1, Naoya Kato7, Masaru Miyazaki8.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Carbon ion beams have several physical and biological advantages compared with conventional radiation for cancer therapy. The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 2-fraction carbon ion radiation therapy (CIRT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between December 2008 and March 2013, 57 patients with localized HCC were treated with CIRT at a total dose of 45 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) in 2 fractions and retrospectively analyzed after long-term observation. The main endpoints of this study were treatment-related toxicity and local tumor control. Toxicity was assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Changes in the Child-Pugh score from before to after CIRT were also examined to evaluate hepatic toxicity. Local control was defined as no progression of the irradiated lesion according to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 32280819 PMCID: PMC7136623 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2019.09.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol ISSN: 2452-1094
Figure 1Dose distribution of carbon ion beams in a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma 8 cm in diameter in the right superior segment of the liver. Beams were delivered in combination with anterior and lateral ports (dose ratio 1:1) in the prone position. The yellow line represents the planning target volume, and the red, orange, pink, and green curves represent the 95%, 90%, 70%, and 50% isodose lines, respectively.
Patient and disease characteristics
| Characteristics | No. of patients (%) (n = 57) |
|---|---|
| Age (y) | |
| Median | 75 |
| Range | 49-89 |
| Sex | |
| Male | 33 (58) |
| Female | 24 (42) |
| Performance status | |
| 0 | 39 (68) |
| 1 | 17 (30) |
| 2 | 1 (2) |
| Viral infection | |
| HCV | 35 (61) |
| HBV | 5 (9) |
| Neither | 17 (30) |
| Child-Pugh classification | |
| A | 51 (89) |
| B | 6 (11) |
| No. of tumors | |
| Single | 56 (98) |
| Multiple | 1 (2) |
| Maximum tumor diameter (mm) | |
| Median | 33 |
| Range | 13-95 |
| Previous treatment for HCC | |
| No | 35 (61) |
| Yes | 22 (39) |
| Previous treatment for the target lesion | |
| No | 41 (72) |
| Yes | 16 (28) |
Abbreviations: HBV = hepatitis B virus; HCC = hepatocellular carcinoma; HCV = hepatitis C virus.
Acute and late toxicities after carbon ion radiation therapy
| Acute (n = 57) | Late (n = 57) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | Grade | |||||||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Skin | 2 | 49 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 47 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Liver | 36 | 16 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 28 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Gastrointestinal | 57 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lung | 45 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bone | 57 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 56 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Toxicities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
Two patients who developed multiple recurrence in the liver and underwent TACE at 3 months after CIRT were excluded from evaluation for late hepatic toxicities.
Child-Pugh score before and after carbon ion radiation therapy
| Score before CIRT | Score after CIRT | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acute phase (n = 57) | Late phase (n = 55) | |||||||||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ≧9 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ≧9 | |
| 5 (n = 43) | 38 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 (n = 8) | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 (n = 5) | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| 8 (n = 1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Abbreviation: CIRT = carbon ion radiation therapy.
Two patients who developed multiple recurrence in the liver and underwent transcatheter arterial chemoembolization at 3 months after carbon ion radiation therapy were excluded from late phase evaluation.
Figure 2Local control rates of all patients.
Figure 3Overall survival rates of all patients.