Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2022
A study on predicting cases that would benefit from proton beam therapy in primary liver tumors of less than or equal to 5 cm based on the estimated incidence of hepatic toxicity.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Uchinami Yusuke, Katoh Norio, Suzuki Ryusuke, Kanehira Takahiro, Tamura Masaya, Takao Seishin, Matsuura Taeko, Miyamoto Naoki, Fujita Yoshihiro, Koizumi Fuki, Taguchi Hiroshi, Yasuda Koichi, Nishioka Kentaro, Yokota Isao, Kobashi Keiji, Aoyama Hidefumi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: For small primary liver tumors, favorable outcomes have been reported with both of proton beam therapy (PBT) and X-ray therapy (XRT). However, no clear criteria have been proposed in the cases for which and when of PBT or XRT has to be used. The aim of this study is to investigate cases that would benefit from PBT based on the predicted rate of hepatic toxicity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were those who underwent PBT for primary liver tumors with a maximum diameter of ≤ 5 cm and Child-Pugh grade A (n = 40). To compare the PBT-plan, the treatment plan using volumetric modulated arc therapy was generated as the XRT-plan. The rate of predicted hepatic toxicity was estimated using five normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models with three different endpoints. The differences in NTCP values (ΔNTCP) were calculated to determine the relative advantage of PBT. Factors predicting benefits of PBT were analyzed by logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: From the dose-volume histogram comparisons, an advantage of PBT was found in sparing of the normal liver receiving low doses. The factors predicting the benefit of PBT differed depending on the selected NTCP model. From the five models, the total tumor diameter (sum of the target tumors), location (hepatic hilum vs other), and number of tumors (1 vs 2) were significant factors.
CONCLUSIONS: From the radiation-related hepatic toxicity, factors were identified to predict benefits of PBT in primary liver tumors with Child-Pugh grade A, with the maximum tumor diameter of ≤ 5 cm.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were those who underwent PBT for primary liver tumors with a maximum diameter of ≤ 5 cm and Child-Pugh grade A (n = 40). To compare the PBT-plan, the treatment plan using volumetric modulated arc therapy was generated as the XRT-plan. The rate of predicted hepatic toxicity was estimated using five normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models with three different endpoints. The differences in NTCP values (ΔNTCP) were calculated to determine the relative advantage of PBT. Factors predicting benefits of PBT were analyzed by logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: From the dose-volume histogram comparisons, an advantage of PBT was found in sparing of the normal liver receiving low doses. The factors predicting the benefit of PBT differed depending on the selected NTCP model. From the five models, the total tumor diameter (sum of the target tumors), location (hepatic hilum vs other), and number of tumors (1 vs 2) were significant factors.
CONCLUSIONS: From the radiation-related hepatic toxicity, factors were identified to predict benefits of PBT in primary liver tumors with Child-Pugh grade A, with the maximum tumor diameter of ≤ 5 cm.