Background and purpose: We investigated clinical outcomes of proton beam concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for unresectable, locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) patients. Materials and methods: Records from 42 unresectable LAPC patients (21 male and 21 female, 39-83 years old) with IIB/III clinical staging of 1/41 treated by proton beam CCRT were retrospectively reviewed. Twelve patients received a conventional 50 Gray equivalents (GyE) in 25 fractions protocol and 30 others received a higher dose protocol of 54.0-67.5 GyE in 25-33 fractions. Gemcitabine or S-1 (Tegafur, Gimeracil and Oteracil) was used concurrently. Toxicity, overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) were examined. Results: Acute adverse events of grades 1, 2, 3 and 4 were found in 4, 15, 17 and 2 patients, respectively. All grade 3 and 4 events were hematologic. Late adverse events of grades 1 and 2 were found in 3 and 2 patients, respectively. No late adverse effects of grade 3 or higher were observed. The 1-year/2-year OS rates from the start of CCRT were 77.8/50.8% with median survival time (MST) of 25.6 months. The 1year/2-year LC rate from CCRT start was 83.3/78.9% with a median time to local recurrence of more than 36 months. Total irradiation dose was the only significant factor in univariate analyses of OS and LC (p = 0.015 and 0.023, respectively). Conclusion: Proton beam CCRT lengthened survival periods compared to previous photon CCRT data and higher dose irradiation prolonged LC and OS for unresectable LAPC patients. Proton beam therapy is therefore safe and effective in these cases.

Long‐term efficacy of proton beam therapy (PBT) remains unclear for patients with previously untreated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to study the long‐term outcomes of PBT according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging classifications in patients with previously untreated HCC. The major eligibility criteria of this observational study were an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0–2, Child–Pugh grade A or B, previously untreated HCC covered within an irradiation field, and no massive ascites. A total of 66.0–77.0 GyE was administered in 10–35 fractions. Local tumor control (LTC), defined as no progression in the irradiated field, progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed according to BCLC staging. From 2002 to 2009 at our institution, 129 patients were eligible. The 5‐year LTC, PFS, and OS rates were 94%, 28%, and 69% for patients with 0/A stage disease (n = 9/21), 87%, 23%, and 66% for patients with B stage disease (n = 34), and 75%, 9%, and 25% for patients with C stage disease (n = 65), respectively. The 5‐year LTC and OS rates of 15 patients with tumor thrombi in major vessels were 90% and 34%, respectively. Multivariate analyses revealed that PS (0 versus 1–2) was a significant prognostic factor for OS. No grade 3 or higher adverse effects were observed. PBT showed favorable long‐term efficacies with mild adverse effects in BCLC stage 0 to C, and can be an alternative treatment for localized HCC especially when accompanied with tumor thrombi. This study was registered with UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000025342).

No abstract

Purpose To evaluate the outcomes of particle therapy in cancer patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Materials and methods From April 2001 to March 2013, 19,585 patients were treated with proton beam therapy (PBT) or carbon ion therapy (CIT) at 8 institutions. Of these, 69 patients (0.4%, PBT 46, CIT 22, and PBT + CIT 1) with CIEDs (64 pacemakers, 4 implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and 1 with a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator) were retrospectively reviewed. All the patients with CIEDs in this study were treated with the passive scattering type of particle beam therapy. Results Six (13%) of the 47 PBT patients, and none of the 23 CIT patients experienced CIED malfunctions (p = 0.105). Electrical resets (7) and over-sensing (3) occurred transiently in 6 patients. The distance between the edge of the irradiation field and the CIED was not associated with the incidence of malfunctions in 20 patients with lung cancer. A larger field size had a higher event rate but the test to evaluate trends as not statistically significant (p = 0.196). Conclusion Differences in the frequency of occurrence of device malfunctions for patients treated with PBT and patients treated with CIT did not reach statistical significance. The present study can be regarded as a benchmark study about the incidence of malfunctioning of CIED in passive scattering particle beam therapy and can be used as a reference for active scanning particle beam therapy.

Background and Purpose: Aeration in the nasal cavity and paranasal

Recent progress in the treatment for pediatric malignancies using a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy has improved survival. However, late toxicities of radiotherapy are a concern in long‐term survivors. A recent study suggested reduced secondary cancer and other late toxicities after proton beam therapy (PBT) due to dosimetric advantages. In this study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of PBT for pediatric patients treated in Japan. A retrospective observational study in pediatric patients who received PBT was performed. All patients aged <20 years old who underwent PBT from January 1983 to August 2014 at four sites in Japan were enrolled in the study. There were 343 patients in the study. The median follow‐up periods were 22.6 months (0.4–374.3 months) for all patients and 30.6 months (0.6–374.3 months) for survivors. The estimated 1‐, 3‐, 5‐, and 10‐year survival rates were 82.7% (95% CI: 78.5–87.0%), 67.4% (61.7–73.2%), 61.4% (54.8–67.9%), and 58.7% (51.5–65.9%), respectively. Fifty‐two events of toxicity ≥ grade 2 occurred in 43 patients. Grade 4 toxicities of myelitis, visual loss (two cases), cerebral vascular disease, and tissue necrosis occurred in five patients. This study provides preliminary results for PBT in pediatric patients in Japan. More experience and follow‐up with this technique are required to establish the efficacy of PBT in this patient population.

Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a potential new alternative to treatment with photon radiotherapy that may reduce the risk of late toxicity and secondary cancer, especially for pediatric tumors. The goal of this study was to evaluate the long‐term benefits of PBT in cancer survivors. A retrospective observational study of pediatric patients who received PBT was performed at four institutions in Japan. Of 343 patients, 62 were followed up for 5 or more years. These patients included 40 males and 22 females, and had a median age of 10 years (range: 0–19 years) at the time of treatment. The irradiation dose ranged from 10.8 to 81.2 GyE (median: 50.4 GyE). The median follow‐up period was 8.1 years (5.0–31.2 years). The 5‐, 10‐ and 20‐year rates for grade 2 or higher late toxicities were 18%, 35% and 45%, respectively, and those for grade 3 or higher late toxicities were 6%, 17% and 17% respectively. Univariate analysis showed that the irradiated site (head and neck, brain) was significantly associated with late toxicities. No malignant secondary tumors occurred within the irradiated field. The 10‐ and 20‐year cumulative rates for all secondary tumors, malignant secondary tumors, and malignant nonhematologic secondary tumors were 8% and 16%, 5% and 13%, and 3% and 11%, respectively. Our data indicate that PBT has the potential to reduce the risk of late mortality and secondary malignancy. Longer follow‐up is needed to confirm the benefits of PBT for pediatric tumors.

No abstract