ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Efficacy and Safety of Newly Installed Spot Scanning Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
BACKGROUND/
aimThis study aimed to analyse retrospectively the initial treatment outcomes and associated toxicities of a spot scanning proton beam therapy for prostate cancer at the Shonan-Kamakura General Hospital. PATIENTS AND
methodsA laterally opposing single-field uniform dose of spot-scanning proton beam was used. The doses were determined to be 60 Gy in 20 fractions for low-risk prostate cancer and 63 Gy in 21 fractions for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancers. Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were also evaluated. Toxicity was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0.
resultsA total of 135 patients were treated over two years, 51 of whom underwent hydrogel spacer insertion. During the limited observation period, no patient experienced a recurrence. Grade 2 GU toxicities were observed in 17 patients, whereas grade 1 or greater GI toxicities were observed in seven patients. None of the patients in whom a hydrogel spacer was inserted experienced grade 1 or higher GI toxicity.
conclusionProton beam therapy is safe for the treatment of prostate cancer. The insertion of a gold marker and hydrogel spacer led to a reduction in the rectal radiation dose and GI toxicity.
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.