Evidence Hub

The clinical relative biological effectiveness and prostate-specific antigen kinetics of carbon-ion radiotherapy in low-risk prostate cancer

Kang YM, Ishikawa H, Inaniwa T, Iwai Y, Matsufuji N, Kasuya G, Okonogi N, Liu YM et al.

Cancer medicine, 2023

262 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the clinical relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of carbon-ion radiotherapy (C-ion RT) for prostate cancer.

METHODS: The records of 262 patients with low-risk prostate cancer (median age, 65 [47-80] years) treated with C-ion RT at QST Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology in Japan during 2000-2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Four different protocol outcomes and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses were evaluated. The median follow-up was 8.4 years. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the biochemical or clinical failure-free rate (BCFFR). Clinical RBE was calculated using the tumor control probability model.

RESULTS: The 5-, 7-, and 10-year BCFFRs were 91.7%, 83.8%, and 73.2%, respectively. The 10-year BCFFRs of patients who received C-ion RT at 66 Gy (RBE) in 20 fractions, 63 Gy (RBE) in 20 fractions, and 57.6 Gy (RBE) in 16 fractions were 81.4%, 70.9%, and 68.9%, respectively. The PSA level and density during follow-up were better in the patients treated with the lower fraction size. A higher PSA nadir and shorter time to PSA nadir were risk factors for biochemical or clinical failure by multivariate Cox regression. The tumor control probability analysis showed that the estimated clinical RBE values to achieve an 80% BCFFR at 10 years for 20, 16, and 12 fractions were 2.19 (2.18-2.24), 2.16 (2.14-2.23), and 2.12 (2.09-2.21), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Using clinical data from low-risk prostate cancer…

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: 262 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