ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2018
Clinical results of proton beam therapy for elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Anthropomorphic lung phantom based validation of in-room proton therapy 4D-CBCT image correction for dose calculation.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2022Article
- Design and commissioning of an image-guided small animal radiation platform and quality assurance protocol for integrated proton and x-ray radiobiology research.Physics in medicine and biology · 2019Article
- Definitive radiotherapy for hilar and/or mediastinal lymph node metastases after stereotactic body radiotherapy or surgery for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: 5-year results.Japanese journal of radiology · 2018Article
- A Beam-Angle-Selection Method to Improve Inter-Fraction Motion Robustness for Lung Tumor Irradiation With Passive Proton Scattering.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of the present study was to evaluate retrospectively the efficacy and safety of proton beam therapy for elderly patients (≥80 years of age) with non-small cell lung cancer.
methodsPatients diagnosed with T1-4 N0 M0 non-small cell lung cancer and treated with proton beam therapy between January 2009 and 2015 were recruited from our database retrospectively. Toxicity was evaluated using The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0.
resultsThirty-five patients, including 25 (71%) with clinically inoperable lung cancer, were administered proton beam therapy. The median age was 82 years (range: 80-87 years), and the median follow-up time was 34 months (range: 10-72 months). The median dose of proton beam therapy was 80.0 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) (range: 60.0-80.0 Gy [RBE]), and all patients completed the treatments. All patients were followed for at least 23 months or until their death. The 3-year overall survival rate was 67.2% (90.0% in patients with operable lung cancer, and 58.2% in those with inoperable lung cancer). The 3-year local control rate was 86.5%. Two patients presented with grade 2 pneumonitis. The occurrence rate of grade 2 pneumonitis was significantly correlated with a high lung V20 (p = 0.030), and a high mean lung dose (p = 0.030), and a low ratio of lung volume spared from 0.05 Gy (RBE) dose (total lung volume minus lung volume irradiated at least 0.05 Gy [RBE]) (p = 0.030). However, there were no cases of grade 3 or higher radiation pneumonitis.
conclusionsThis study suggests that the proton beam therapy was feasible for elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer and can be considered as one of the treatment choices for elderly patients with lung cancer.
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.