Evidence Hub

Comparison of passive and scanning irradiation methods for carbon-ion radiotherapy for breast cancer

Matsubara H, Karasawa K, Furuichi W, Wakaisami M, Shiba S, Wakatsuki M, Omatsu T, Inaniwa T et al.

Journal of radiation research, 2018

Abstract

The dose distribution of passive and scanning irradiation for carbon-ion radiotherapy for breast cancer was compared in order to determine the preferred treatment method. Eleven Japanese patients who received carbon-ion radiotherapy for breast cancer were retrospectively analyzed. The original clinical plans were used for the passive irradiation method, while the plans for the scanning irradiation method were more recently made. Statistical analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in superiority in terms of dose distribution between the passive and scanning irradiation methods. The present study found that the scanning irradiation method was not always superior to the passive method, despite a previous study having reported the superiority of scanning irradiation. The present result is considered to arise from characteristics of breast cancer treatment, such as the simplicity of the organ at risk and the shallow depth point of the target from the skin. It is noteworthy that the present study suggests that the passive irradiation method can provide better dose distribution, depending on the case.

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.

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