Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2014
Phase I/II trial of definitive carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer: evaluation of shortening of treatment period to 3 weeks.
Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Application of Carbon Ion and Its Sensitizing Agent in Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2017Pooled it
- Long-term clinical outcomes after 12-fractionated carbon-ion radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.Cancer science · 2021Trial
- Peripheral lymphocyte subset variation predicts prostate cancer carbon ion radiotherapy outcomes.Oncotarget · 2016Trial
- Revisiting fractionation in prostate carbon ion therapy: first comparative analysis of biologically effective dose using mMKM with diverse parameters.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- The Estimated Difference in Biologically Effective Dose Between Two-Opposing-Fields-Per-Day and One-Alternating-Field-Per-Day Carbon Ion Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Rectal Gas-Induced Dose Changes in Carbon Ion Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: An In Silico Study.International journal of particle therapy · 2025Article
- Assessing the robustness of dose distributions in carbon ion prostate radiotherapy using a fast dose evaluation system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Carbon ion radiation therapy in prostate cancer: The importance of dosage.World journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Clinical indications and future directions of carbon-ion radiotherapy: a narrative review.Ewha medical journal · 2024Review
- Carbon Ion Radiation Therapy for Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- The clinical relative biological effectiveness and prostate-specific antigen kinetics of carbon-ion radiotherapy in low-risk prostate cancer.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Basic and translational research on carbon-ion radiobiology.American journal of cancer research · 2023Review
- Carbon-ion radiotherapy for urological cancers.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2022Review
- Safety and Efficacy of Carbon-Ion Radiotherapy for Elderly Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer.Cancers · 2022Article
- Induced Radionuclides and Their Activity Concentration in Gel Dosimeters Irradiated by Carbon Ion Beam.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Flourish of Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy in China.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Carbon ion radiotherapy using fiducial markers for prostate cancer in Osaka HIMAK: Treatment planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a new shortened 3-week treatment schedule of carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for prostate cancer.
methodsBeginning in May 2010, patients with T1b-T3bN0M0, histologically proven prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled in the phase II trial of CIRT. Patients received 51.6 GyE in 12 fractions over 3 weeks (protocol 1002). The primary end point was defined as the incidence of late adverse events that were evaluated based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Biochemical failure was determined using the Phoenix definition (nadir +2.0 ng ml(-1)).
resultsForty-six patients were enrolled, and all patients were included in the analysis. The number of low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients was 12 (26%), 9 (20%), and 25 (54%), respectively. The median follow-up period of surviving patients was 32.3 months. Two patients had intercurrent death without recurrence, and the remaining 44 patients were alive at the time of this analysis. In the analysis of late toxicities, grade 1 (G1) rectal haemorrhage was observed in 3 (7%) patients. The incidence of G1 haematuria was observed in 6 (13%) patients, and G1 urinary frequency was observed in 17 (37%) patients. No ⩾G2 late toxicities were observed. In the analysis of acute toxicities, 2 (4%) patients showed G2 urinary frequency, and no other G2 acute toxicities were observed.
conclusionsThe new shortened CIRT schedule over 3 weeks was considered as feasible. The analysis of long-term outcome is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.