Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2026
Particle Beam Re-irradiation in Oligo Recurrent Gynecological Malignancies.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barcellini A, Vai A, Fontana G, Cassani C, Charalampopoulou A, Cobianchi L, Franzetti J, Gadducci A, Imparato S, Laliscia C, Landoni F, Lazzari R, Locati L D, Lorusso D, Mangili G, Pignata S, Raspagliesi F, Tinelli C, Orlandi E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of proton beam radiotherapy (PBRT) and carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) as salvage treatments for oligorecurrent gynecological cancers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on consecutive patients treated with PBRT or CIRT for recurrent gynecological tumors. The primary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR) as well as 1- and 2-year local control (LC) survival rates. Toxicity was assessed as a secondary endpoint and graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 5.0 scale. Actuarial outcomes were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and predictors were identified with the Log-rank test.
RESULTS: A total of 27 patients (median age: 64.5 years; IQR = 56.0, 69.0) with 28 recurrent lesions were treated with either PBRT (N = 12) or CIRT (N = 16), without concurrent systemic therapies. The majority of patients were treated for recurrences of cervical cancer (N = 8, 29%), endometrial cancer (N = 7, 25%), and ovarian cancer (N = 6, 21%). The most frequent site of recurrence was lymph nodes (N = 14, 50%). Lesions treated with CIRT had a larger volume (median volume 118 [IQR = 66, 233.5] vs. 99 [IQR = 54, 152.3]) and lower alpha/beta ratios (median = 3.8 [IQR = 3.5, 4.5] vs. 7.3 [IQR = 3.5, 10.0]). The overall ORR was 68% within 6 months and did not significantly vary between the groups (p = 0.687). The 1- and 2-year LC rates were 100% and 100% for PBRT, compared to 83% and 62% for CIRT (p = 0.075). Larger lesion volumes (p = 0.035) and failure to achieve an ORR (p = 0.009) were associated with worse LC outcomes, while lymph node recurrences (p = 0.052) and lower alpha/beta ratios (p = 0.078) were potentially linked to better LC. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no grade ≥3 toxicities observed.
CONCLUSIONS: PBRT and/or CIRT appeared as an effective and safe option for recurrent gynecological cancers in a real-world setting. Larger cohorts and longer follow-up are needed for further validation and refining patient selection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on consecutive patients treated with PBRT or CIRT for recurrent gynecological tumors. The primary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR) as well as 1- and 2-year local control (LC) survival rates. Toxicity was assessed as a secondary endpoint and graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 5.0 scale. Actuarial outcomes were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and predictors were identified with the Log-rank test.
RESULTS: A total of 27 patients (median age: 64.5 years; IQR = 56.0, 69.0) with 28 recurrent lesions were treated with either PBRT (N = 12) or CIRT (N = 16), without concurrent systemic therapies. The majority of patients were treated for recurrences of cervical cancer (N = 8, 29%), endometrial cancer (N = 7, 25%), and ovarian cancer (N = 6, 21%). The most frequent site of recurrence was lymph nodes (N = 14, 50%). Lesions treated with CIRT had a larger volume (median volume 118 [IQR = 66, 233.5] vs. 99 [IQR = 54, 152.3]) and lower alpha/beta ratios (median = 3.8 [IQR = 3.5, 4.5] vs. 7.3 [IQR = 3.5, 10.0]). The overall ORR was 68% within 6 months and did not significantly vary between the groups (p = 0.687). The 1- and 2-year LC rates were 100% and 100% for PBRT, compared to 83% and 62% for CIRT (p = 0.075). Larger lesion volumes (p = 0.035) and failure to achieve an ORR (p = 0.009) were associated with worse LC outcomes, while lymph node recurrences (p = 0.052) and lower alpha/beta ratios (p = 0.078) were potentially linked to better LC. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no grade ≥3 toxicities observed.
CONCLUSIONS: PBRT and/or CIRT appeared as an effective and safe option for recurrent gynecological cancers in a real-world setting. Larger cohorts and longer follow-up are needed for further validation and refining patient selection.