Evidence Hub

Proton and carbon ion beam treatment with active raster scanning method in 147 patients with skull base chordoma at the Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center—a single-center experience

Matthias Mattke, Matteo Ohlinger, N. Bougatf, S. Harrabi, Robert J. Wolf, K. Seidensaal, T. Welzel, F. Röder et al.

Strahlentherapie und Onkologie (Print), 2022

147 participants · 26 citations

Abstract

Background This study aimed to compare the results of irradiation with protons versus irradiation with carbon ions in a raster scan technique in patients with skull base chordomas and to identify risk factors that may compromise treatment results. Methods A total of 147 patients (85 men, 62 women) were irradiated with carbon ions (111 patients) or protons (36 patients) with a median dose of 66 Gy (RBE (Relative biological effectiveness); carbon ions) in 4 weeks or 74 Gy (RBE; protons) in 7 weeks at the Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT) in Heidelberg, Germany. The median follow-up time was 49.3 months. All patients had gross residual disease at the beginning of RT. Compression of the brainstem was present in 38%, contact without compression in 18%, and no contact but less than 3 mm distance in 16%. Local control and overall survival were evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier Method based on scheduled treatment (protons vs. carbon ions) and compared via the log rank test. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify possible prognostic factors. Results During the follow-up, 41 patients (27.9%) developed a local recurrence. The median follow-up time was 49.3 months (95% CI: 40.8–53.8; reverse Kaplan–Meier median follow-up time 56.3 months, 95% CI: 51.9–60.7). No significant differences between protons and carbon ions were observed regarding LC, OS, or overall toxicity. The 1‑year, 3‑year, and 5‑year LC rates were 97%, 80%, and 61% (protons) and 96%, 80%, and 65% (carbon…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 147 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free