ArticleCancer medicine2023
The clinical relative biological effectiveness and prostate-specific antigen kinetics of carbon-ion radiotherapy in low-risk prostate cancer.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- A Phase I/II Study of Ultra-Hypofractionated Carbon-ion Radiation therapy for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Feasibility and safety of Taipei Veterans General Hospital Heavy Ion Therapy Center: The first carbon-ion irradiation facility in Taiwan.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2025Article
- The clinical relative biological effectiveness and prostate-specific antigen kinetics of carbon-ion radiotherapy in low-risk prostate cancer.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the clinical relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of carbon-ion radiotherapy (C-ion RT) for prostate cancer.
methodsThe records of 262 patients with low-risk prostate cancer (median age, 65 [47-80] years) treated with C-ion RT at QST Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology in Japan during 2000-2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Four different protocol outcomes and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses were evaluated. The median follow-up was 8.4 years. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the biochemical or clinical failure-free rate (BCFFR). Clinical RBE was calculated using the tumor control probability model.
resultsThe 5-, 7-, and 10-year BCFFRs were 91.7%, 83.8%, and 73.2%, respectively. The 10-year BCFFRs of patients who received C-ion RT at 66 Gy (RBE) in 20 fractions, 63 Gy (RBE) in 20 fractions, and 57.6 Gy (RBE) in 16 fractions were 81.4%, 70.9%, and 68.9%, respectively. The PSA level and density during follow-up were better in the patients treated with the lower fraction size. A higher PSA nadir and shorter time to PSA nadir were risk factors for biochemical or clinical failure by multivariate Cox regression. The tumor control probability analysis showed that the estimated clinical RBE values to achieve an 80% BCFFR at 10 years for 20, 16, and 12 fractions were 2.19 (2.18-2.24), 2.16 (2.14-2.23), and 2.12 (2.09-2.21), respectively.
conclusionsUsing clinical data from low-risk prostate cancer patients, we showed the clinical RBE of C-ion RT decreased with increasing dose per fraction.
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.