| Title |
Dosimetric comparison between proton beam therapy and photon radiation therapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-018-0966-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yasuhiro Hirano, Masakatsu Onozawa, Hidehiro Hojo, Atsushi Motegi, Sadatomo Zenda, Kenji Hotta, Shunsuke Moriya, Hidenobu Tachibana, Naoki Nakamura, Takashi Kojima, Tetsuo Akimoto |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to perform a dosimetric comparison between proton beam therapy (PBT) and photon radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who were treated with PBT in our institution. In addition, we evaluated the correlation between toxicities and dosimetric parameters, especially the doses to normal lung or heart tissue, to clarify the clinical advantage of PBT over photon radiation therapy. A total of 37 consecutive patients with Stage III thoracic ESCC who had received PBT with or without concurrent chemotherapy between October 2012 and December 2015 were evaluated in this study. The dose distributions of PBT were compared with those of dummy 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), focusing especially on the doses to organs at risk, such as normal lung and heart tissue. Of the 37 patients, the data from 27 patients were analyzed. Among these 27 patients, four patients (15%) developed grade 2 pericardial effusion as a late toxicity. None of the patients developed grade 3 or worse acute or late pulmonary and cardiac toxicities. When the dosimetric parameters between PBT and planned 3DCRT were compared, all the PBT domestic variables for the lung dose except for lung V10 GyE and V15 GyE were significantly lower than those for the dummy 3DCRT plans, and the PBT domestic variables for the heart dose were also significantly lower than those for the dummy 3DCRT plans. When the PBT and IMRT plans were compared, all the PBT domestic variables for the doses to the lung and heart were significantly lower than those for the dummy IMRT plans. Regarding the correlation between the grades of toxicities and the dosimetric parameters, no significant correlation was seen between the occurrence of grade 2 pericardial effusion and the dose to the heart. When the dosimetric parameters of the dose distributions for the treatment of patients with locally advanced stage III ESCC were compared between PBT and 3DCRT or IMRT, PBT enabled a significant reduction in the dose to the lung and heart, compared with 3DCRT or IMRT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 26 | 57% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 29 | 63% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,930,799
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,290
of 2,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,743
of 442,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#25
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,072 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.