Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38041122›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2023

Dosimetric rationale and preliminary experience in proton plus carbon-ion radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma: a retrospective analysis.

Ningyi Ma, Xue Ming, Jian Chen, Kai-Liang Wu, Jiade Lu, Guoliang Jiang, Jingfang Mao

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Proton therapy in Spain: SEOR-SPROMP multidisciplinary recommendations developed through a RAND/UCLA consensus process.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ningyi MaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai Key Laboratory of radiation oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, 4365 Kang Xin Road, Shanghai, 201315, China.
Xue MingDepartment of Medical Physics, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of radiation oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai, China.
Jian ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai Key Laboratory of radiation oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, 4365 Kang Xin Road, Shanghai, 201315, China.
Kai-Liang WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai Key Laboratory of radiation oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, 4365 Kang Xin Road, Shanghai, 201315, China.
Jiade LuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai Key Laboratory of radiation oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, 4365 Kang Xin Road, Shanghai, 201315, China.
Guoliang JiangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai Key Laboratory of radiation oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, 4365 Kang Xin Road, Shanghai, 201315, China.
Jingfang MaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai Key Laboratory of radiation oncology (20dz2261000), Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, 4365 Kang Xin Road, Shanghai, 201315, China. jingfang.mao@sphic.org.cn.
Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center · CN

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai 20ZR1453300Shanghai Hospital Development Center Foundation SHDC12019X25Shanghai Municipal Health Commission Funds 201940334
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConcurrent chemoradiotherapy has been standard of care for unresectable esophageal carcinoma. There were no reports on proton radiotherapy (PRT) plus carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) with pencil beam scanning (PBS) for esophageal carcinoma. This study evaluated the tolerability and efficiency of proton and sequential carbon-ion boost radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma.

methodsFrom April 2017 to July 2020, 20 patients with primary esophageal carcinoma at stages II-IV were treated with PRT plus sequential CIRT with PBS. A median relative biological effectiveness-weighted PRT dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions, and a sequential CIRT dose of 21 Gy in 7 fractions were delivered. Respiratory motion management was used if the tumor moved > 5 mm during the breathing cycle. A dosimetric comparison of photon intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), PRT, and CIRT was performed. The median times and rates of survivals were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of the dose-volume parameters of the organs at risk employed the Wilcoxon matched-pairs test.

resultsTwenty patients (15 men and 5 women, median age 70 years) were included in the analysis. With a median follow-up period of 25.0 months, the 2-year overall survival and progression-free survival rates were 69.2% and 57.4%, respectively. The patients tolerated radiotherapy and chemotherapy well. Grades 1, 2, 3, and 4 acute hematological toxicities were detected in 25%, 30%, 10%, and 30% of patients, respectively. Grades 3-5 acute non-hematological toxicities were not observed. Late toxicity events included grades 1, 2, and 3 in 50%, 20%, and 10% (pulmonary and esophageal toxicity in each) of patients. Grades 4-5 late toxicities were not noted. PRT or CIRT produced lower doses to organs at risk than did photon IMRT, especially the maximum dose delivered to the spinal cord and the mean doses delivered to the lungs and heart.

conclusionsPRT plus CIRT with PBS appears to be a safe and effective treatment for esophageal carcinoma. PRT and CIRT delivered lower doses to organs at risk than did photon IMRT. Further investigation is warranted.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellEsophageal NeoplasmsHeavy Ion RadiotherapyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedAgedCarbonFemaleHumansMaleProtonsRadiotherapy DosageRetrospective StudiesCarbonProtonsCarbon ion radiotherapyEsophageal carcinomaPencil-beam scanningProton radiotherapySurvivalToxicity

Identifiers

PMID38041122
PMCPMC10693034
OpenAlexW4389223348

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.