Evidence Hub

Proton and carbon ion radiotherapy for operable early-stage lung cancer; a prospective nationwide registry

Harada H, Suefuji H, Mori K, Ishikawa H, Nakamura M, Tokumaru S, Murakami M, Ogino T et al.

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2024

274 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the toxicity and survival outcomes of proton and carbon ion radiotherapy for patients with operable early-stage lung cancer who are eligible for lobectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter nationwide prospective cohort study included patients with operable early-stage lung cancer. Proton and carbon ion radiotherapy was performed according to the schedule stipulated in the unified treatment policy. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related toxicities were evaluated.

RESULTS: A total of 274 patients were enrolled and included in efficacy and safety analyses. The most common tumor type was adenocarcinoma (44 %), while 105 cases (38 %) were not histologically confirmed or diagnosed clinically. Overall, 250 (91 %) of the 274 patients had tumors that were peripherally situated, while 138 (50 %) and 136 (50 %) patients were treated by proton and carbon ion radiotherapy, respectively. The median follow-up time for all censored patients was 42.8 months (IQR 36.7-49.0). Grade 3 or severe treatment-related toxicity was observed in 4 cases (1.5 %). Three-year PFS was 80.5 % (95 % CI: 75.7 %-85.5 %) and OS was 92.5 % (95 % CI: 89.3 %-95.8 %). Pathological confirmation and clinical stage were factors significantly associated with PFS, while tumor location and particle-ion type were not. Meanwhile, clinical stage was significantly associated with OS, but pathological confirmation, tumor location, and…

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: 274 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