Dosimetric analysis and biological evaluation between proton radiotherapy and photon radiotherapy for the long target of total esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Cui, Yongbin; Pan, Yuteng; Li, Zhenjiang; Wu, Qiang; Zou, Jingmin; Han, Demin; Yin, Yong; Ma, Changsheng

doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.954187

Cited by 1 publication

(10 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4, Figure 1 describes the selection process and the reasons for excluding studies. Among the included studies, 31 studies [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][27][28][29]31,34,35,37,38,46,47,[49][50][51][52] included dosimetric comparison (eTable 1 in Supplement 1), 17 studies [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]46,48,49 assessed proton vs photon therapy (Table 1), and 10 studies 4,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 45 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis Figure 1. describes the selection process and the reasons for excluding studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…describes the selection process and the reasons for excluding studies. Among the included studies, 31 studies included dosimetric comparison (eTable 1 in Supplement 1), 17 studies assessed proton vs photon therapy (Table 1), and 10 studies were single-group studies of proton therapy (Table 2). Three studies used propensity score–matched analysis to control for confounding factors, and results from those analyses were used for data synthesis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We found 25 articles [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]28,31,35,37,38,46,47,[49][50][51][52] assessing the lungs for OARS dosimetric parameters and 26 studies 10-17, 19-22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52 assessing the heart for dosimetric parameters, but some of them had no sufficient data for analysis. Pooled analysis found that proton therapy was associated with significantly reduced the mean dose to the lungs: compared with photon therapy, 24.8% less lung volume received 5 Gy or more, 12.9% less lung volume received Gy), 13,17,20 and left anterior descending artery (by 11.2 Gy).…”

Section: Dosimetric Comparison Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gy. 11,12,14,16,[20][21][22][23][24]28,51,52 All pooled analysis results are presented in eFigure 1 and eTable 6 in Supplement 1.…”

Section: Dosimetric Comparison Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Efficacy and Safety in Proton Therapy and Photon Therapy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer

Zhou

Zhang

et al. 2023

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceRadiotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Proton therapy has unique physical properties and higher relative biological effectiveness. However, whether proton therapy has greater benefit than photon therapy is still unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether proton was associated with better efficacy and safety outcomes, including dosimetric, prognosis, and toxic effects outcomes, compared with photon therapy and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of proton therapy singly.Data SourcesA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SinoMed, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases was conducted for articles published through November 25, 2021, and updated to March 25, 2023.Study SelectionFor the comparison of proton and photon therapy, studies including dosimetric, prognosis, and associated toxic effects outcomes were included. The separate evaluation of proton therapy evaluated the same metrics.Data Extraction and SynthesisData on study design, individual characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. If I2 was greater than 50%, the random-effects model was selected. This meta-analysis is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were organs at risk (OARs) dosimetric outcomes, prognosis (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], and objective response rate [ORR]), and radiation-related toxic effects.ResultsA total of 45 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For dosimetric analysis, proton therapy was associated with significantly reduced OARs dose. Meta-analysis showed that photon therapy was associated with poor OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61; I2 = 11%), but no difference in PFS was observed. Subgroup analysis showed worse OS (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.78; I2 = 34%) and PFS (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; I2 = 7%) in the radical therapy group with photon therapy. The pathological complete response rate was similar between groups. Proton therapy was associated with significantly decreased grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis and pericardial effusion, and grade 4 or higher lymphocytopenia. Single-rate analysis of proton therapy found 89% OS and 65% PFS at 1 year, 71% OS and 56% PFS at 2 years, 63% OS and 48% PFS at 3 years, and 56% OS and 42% PFS at 5 years. The incidence of grade 2 or higher radiation esophagitis was 50%, grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis was 2%, grade 2 or higher pleural effusion was 4%, grade 2 or higher pericardial effusion was 3%, grade 3 or higher radiation esophagitis was 8%, and grade 4 or higher lymphocytopenia was 17%.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this meta-analysis, proton therapy was associated with reduced OARs doses and toxic effects and improved prognosis compared with photon therapy for esophageal cancer, but caution is warranted. In the future, these findings should be further validated in randomized clinical trials.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 45 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis Figure 1. describes the selection process and the reasons for excluding studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%