Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32460889›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2020

Preliminary result of carbon-ion radiotherapy using the spot scanning method for prostate cancer.

Yosuke Takakusagi, Hiroyuki Katoh, Kio Kano, Wataru Anno, Keisuke Tsuchida, Nobutaka Mizoguchi, Itsuko Serizawa, Daisaku Yoshida, Tadashi Kamada

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Carbon-ion radiotherapy for urological cancers.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yosuke TakakusagiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Asahi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Hiroyuki KatohDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Asahi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan. hkatoh@kcch.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0804-7271
Kio KanoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Asahi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Wataru AnnoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Asahi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Keisuke TsuchidaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Asahi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Nobutaka MizoguchiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Asahi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Itsuko SerizawaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Asahi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Daisaku YoshidaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Asahi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Tadashi KamadaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Asahi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Kanagawa Prefectural Hospital Organization · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCarbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for prostate cancer was initiated at Kanagawa Cancer Center in 2015. The present study analyzed the preliminary clinical outcomes of CIRT for prostate cancer.

methodsThe clinical outcomes of 253 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with CIRT delivered using the spot scanning method between December 2015 and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The irradiation dose was set at 51.6 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) delivered in 12 fractions over 3 weeks. Biochemical relapse was defined using the Phoenix definition. Toxicities were assessed according to CTCAE version 4.0.

resultsThe median patient age was 70 (47-86) years. The median follow-up duration was 35.3 (4.1-52.9) months. According to the D'Amico classification system, 8, 88, and 157 patients were classified as having low, intermediate, and high risks, respectively. Androgen deprivation therapy was administered in 244 patients. The biochemical relapse-free rate in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups at 3 years was 87.5, 88.0, and 97.5%, respectively (P = 0.036). Grade 2 acute urinary toxicity was observed in 12 (4.7%) patients. Grade 2 acute rectal toxicity was not observed. Grade 2 late urinary toxicity and grade 2 late rectal toxicity were observed in 17 (6.7%) and 3 patients (1.2%), respectively. Previous transurethral resection of the prostate was significantly associated with late grade 2 toxicity in univariate analysis. The predictive factor for late rectal toxicity was not detected.

conclusionThe present study demonstrated that CIRT using the spot scanning method for prostate cancer produces favorable outcomes.

Indexed as

Heavy Ion RadiotherapyAgedAged, 80 and overAndrogen AntagonistsHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRectumRetrospective StudiesAndrogen AntagonistsProstate-Specific AntigenCarbon-ion radiotherapyClinical outcomeProstate cancerSpot scanning methodToxicity

Identifiers

PMID32460889
PMCPMC7254700
OpenAlexW3030736188

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.