Phase II feasibility study of high-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer using proton boost therapy: first clinical trial of proton beam therapy for prostate cancer in Japan.

Radiation Oncology Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8577, Japan.
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 2.02). 01/2006; 35(12):745-52. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyi193
Source: PubMed


To assess the feasibility of high-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer using proton boost therapy following photon radiotherapy.
The primary endpoint was acute grade 3 or greater genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities. The study included patients with clinical stage T1-3N0M0 prostate cancer. Radiotherapy consisted of 50 Gy/25 fx photon irradiation to the prostate and the bilateral seminal vesicles followed by proton boost of 26 Gy(E)/13 fx to the prostate alone. Hormonal therapy was allowed before and during the radiation therapy.
Between January 2001 and January 2003, 30 patients were enrolled in this study. Acute grade 1/2 GU and GI toxicities were observed in 20/4 and 17/0 patients, respectively. With the median follow-up period of 30 months (range 20-45), late grade 1/2 GU and GI toxicities occurred in 2/3 and 8/3 patients, respectively. No grade 3 or greater acute or late toxicities were observed. All patients were alive, but six patients relapsed biochemically after 7-24 months.
Proton boost therapy following photon radiotherapy for prostate cancer is feasible. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of proton beam therapy, a multi-institutional phase II trial is in progress in Japan.

Download full-text


Available from: Masakatsu Onozawa, Jan 24, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Particle beams like protons and heavier ions offer improved dose distributions compared with photon (also called x-ray) beams and thus enable dose escalation within the tumor while sparing normal tissues. Although protons have a biologic effectiveness comparable to photons, ions, because they are heavier than protons, provide a higher biologic effectiveness. Recent technologic developments in the fields of accelerator engineering, treatment planning, beam delivery, and tumor visualization have stimulated the process of transferring particle radiation therapy (RT) from physics laboratories to the clinic. This review describes the physical, biologic, and technologic aspects of particle beam therapy. Clinical trials investigating proton and carbon ion RT will be summarized and discussed in the context of their relevance to recent concepts of treatment with RT.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 04/2007; 25(8):953-64. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2006.09.7816 · 18.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The comparative effectiveness of localized prostate cancer treatments is largely unknown. To compare the effectiveness and harms of treatments for localized prostate cancer. MEDLINE (through September 2007), the Cochrane Library (through Issue 3, 2007), and the Cochrane Review Group in Prostate Diseases and Urologic Malignancies registry (through November 2007). Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language and observational studies published in English that evaluated treatments and reported clinical or biochemical outcomes in localized prostate cancer. 2 researchers extracted information on study design, sample characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. 18 RCTs and 473 observational studies met inclusion criteria. One [one randomized controlled trial] [corrected] RCT enrolled mostly men without prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-detected disease and reported that, compared with watchful waiting, radical prostatectomy reduced crude [corrected] all-cause mortality (24% vs. 30%; P = 0.04) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (10% [corrected] vs. 15% [corrected]; P = 0.01) at 10 years [corrected] Effectiveness was limited to men younger than age 65 years but was not associated with Gleason score or baseline PSA level. An older, smaller trial found no significant overall survival differences between radical prostatectomy and watchful waiting (risk difference, 0% [95% CI, -19% to 18%]). Radical prostatectomy reduced disease recurrence at 5 years compared with external-beam radiation therapy in 1 small, older trial (14% vs. 39%; risk difference, 21%; P = 0.04). No external-beam radiation regimen was superior to another in reducing mortality. No randomized trials evaluated primary androgen deprivation. Androgen deprivation used adjuvant to radical prostatectomy did not improve biochemical progression compared with radical prostatectomy alone (risk difference, 0% [CI, -7% to 7%]). No randomized trial evaluated brachytherapy, cryotherapy, robotic radical prostatectomy, or photon-beam or intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Observational studies showed wide and overlapping effectiveness estimates within and between treatments. Adverse event definitions and severity varied widely. The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study reported that urinary leakage (> or =1 event/d) was more common with radical prostatectomy (35%) than with radiation therapy (12%) or androgen deprivation (11%). Bowel urgency occurred more often with radiation (3%) or androgen deprivation (3%) than with radical prostatectomy (1%). Erectile dysfunction occurred frequently after all treatments (radical prostatectomy, 58%; radiation therapy, 43%; androgen deprivation, 86%). A higher risk score incorporating histologic grade, PSA level, and tumor stage was associated with increased risk for disease progression or recurrence regardless of treatment. Only 3 randomized trials compared effectiveness between primary treatments. No trial enrolled patients with prostate cancer primarily detected with PSA testing. Assessment of the comparative effectiveness and harms of localized prostate cancer treatments is difficult because of limitations in the evidence.
    Annals of internal medicine 03/2008; 148(6):435-48. · 17.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The article describes both the early development of oncology as a core discipline at the University of Heidelberg Hospital and the first steps towards ion beam treatment, from the pilot project carried out in co-operation with the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung Darmstadt to the initial start-up of clinical service at the Heidelberg Heavy Ion Centre (HIT). We present an overview, based on data published in the literature, of the available clinical evidence relating the use of ion beam therapy to treat major indications in active particle centres. A rationale for the use of particle therapy in each of these indications is given. In view of the limited availability of data, we discuss the necessity to conduct clinical trials. We also look forward towards the next activities to be undertaken at the HIT.
    The British journal of radiology 03/2011; 84 Spec No 1(special_issue_1):S35-47. DOI:10.1259/bjr/71511359 · 2.03 Impact Factor
Show more