Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30805611›Full record

ArticleJournal of radiation research2019

A Phase I clinical trial of carbon ion radiotherapy for Stage I breast cancer: clinical and pathological evaluation.

Kumiko Karasawa, Tokuhiki Omatsu, Atsushi Arakawa, Naohito Yamamoto, Takashi Ishikawa, Mitsue Saito, Shigekazu Fukuda, Tadashi Kamada, Working Group for Breast Cancer

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase I
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of radiation research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Value of Carbon-Ion Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer.International journal of particle therapy · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Particle radiotherapy for breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. PretreatmentAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Carbon ion radiation therapy in breast cancer: a new frontier.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020
    Review
  15. Review
  16. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Kumiko KarasawaNational Institute of Radiological Sciences, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, 4-9-1, Anagawa, Inage-ku, Chiba-city, Japan.
Tokuhiki OmatsuNational Institute of Radiological Sciences, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, 4-9-1, Anagawa, Inage-ku, Chiba-city, Japan.
Atsushi ArakawaDepartment of Pathology, Juntendo University, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Naohito YamamotoDepartment of Breast Surgery, Chiba Cancer Center,666-2, Nitonacho, Chuo-ku, Chiba-city, Japan.
Takashi IshikawaDepartment of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, 6-1-1, Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Mitsue SaitoDepartment of Breast Surgery, Juntendo University, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Shigekazu FukudaNational Institute of Radiological Sciences, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, 4-9-1, Anagawa, Inage-ku, Chiba-city, Japan.
Tadashi KamadaNational Institute of Radiological Sciences, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, 4-9-1, Anagawa, Inage-ku, Chiba-city, Japan.
Working Group for Breast Cancer
National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology · JPJuntendo University · JPChiba Cancer Center · JPTokyo Medical University · JPTokyo Women's Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Even with its high RBE and >20 years history, there had been no breast cancer clinical trial using carbon-ion radiotherapy. We started a Phase I trial of carbon ion radiotherapy for Stage I breast cancer in 2013. This article describes the clinical and pathological evaluation of this study. Patients with low-risk Stage I breast cancer were eligible. A dose escalation study was designed, with dose levels of 48.0, 52.8 or 60.0 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) administered in four fractions within 1 week. Three months after radiotherapy, the patients underwent tumor excision for pathological evaluation. Between April 2013 and December 2014, three cases receiving 48 Gy (RBE), three cases receiving 52.8 Gy (RBE) and one case receiving 60 Gy (RBE) underwent this protocol. No adverse effects were observed except for Grade 1 acute skin reaction in four cases. Pathological evaluation revealed that all four cases with doses of 52.8 Gy (RBE) and 60.0 Gy (RBE) achieved Grade 2b or more, but only two cases reached Grade 3. At the end of 2017, all cases were alive without recurrence or late had not caused any late adverse reaction. Carbon ion radiotherapy for Stage I breast cancer seems to be safe, and we found that it did not reach enough treatment effect 3 months after the treatment.

Indexed as

Heavy Ion RadiotherapyAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsDose-Response Relationship, RadiationFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedNeoplasm Stagingbreast cancercarbon ion radiotherapyhypofractionated radiotherapypathological evaluationPhase I clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID30805611
PMCPMC6530622
OpenAlexW2917431708

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.