Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28399182›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Clinical outcomes using carbon-ion radiotherapy and dose-volume histogram comparison between carbon-ion radiotherapy and photon therapy for T2b-4N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer-A pilot study.

Katsuyuki Shirai, Motohiro Kawashima, Jun-Ichi Saitoh, Takanori Abe, Kyohei Fukata, Yuka Shigeta, Daisuke Irie, Shintaro Shiba, Naoko Okano, Tatsuya Ohno and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Research Progress of Heavy Ion Radiotherapy for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Katsuyuki ShiraiGunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.
Motohiro KawashimaGunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.
Jun-Ichi SaitohGunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.
Takanori AbeGunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.
Kyohei FukataGunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.
Yuka ShigetaGunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.
Daisuke IrieGunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.
Shintaro ShibaGunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.
Naoko OkanoGunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.
Tatsuya OhnoGunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.
Takashi NakanoGunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The safety and efficacy of carbon-ion radiotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer have not been established. We evaluated the clinical outcomes and dose-volume histogram parameters of carbon-ion radiotherapy compared with photon therapy in T2b-4N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer. Twenty-three patients were treated with carbon-ion radiotherapy between May 2011 and December 2015. Seven, 14, and 2 patients had T2b, T3, and T4, respectively. The median age was 78 (range, 53-91) years, with 22 male patients. There were 12 adenocarcinomas, 8 squamous cell carcinomas, 1 non-small cell lung carcinoma, and 2 clinically diagnosed lung cancers. Eleven patients were operable, and 12 patients were inoperable. Most patients (91%) were treated with carbon-ion radiotherapy of 60.0 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in 4 fractions or 64.0 Gy (RBE) in 16 fractions. Local control and overall survival rates were calculated. Dose-volume histogram parameters of normal lung and tumor coverages were compared between carbon-ion radiotherapy and photon therapies, including three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The median follow-up of surviving patients was 25 months. Three patients experienced local recurrence, and the 2-year local control rate was 81%. During follow-up, 5 patients died of lung cancer, and 1 died of intercurrent disease. The 2-year overall survival rate was 70%. Operable patients had a better overall survival rate compared with inoperable patients (100% vs. 43%; P = 0.04). There was no grade ≥2 radiation pneumonitis. In dose-volume histogram analysis, carbon-ion radiotherapy had a significantly lower dose to normal lung and greater tumor coverage compared with photon therapies. Carbon-ion radiotherapy was effectively and safely performed for T2b-4N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer, and the dose distribution was superior compared with those for photon therapies. A Japanese multi-institutional study is ongoing to prospectively evaluate these patients and establish the use of carbon-ion radiotherapy.

Indexed as

Heavy Ion RadiotherapyPhotonsAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsSurvival RateTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28399182
PMCPMC5388495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.