BackgroundProton and carbon‐ion therapy may spare normal tissues in regions with many critical structures surrounding the target volume. As toxicity outcome data are emerging, we aimed to synthesize the published data for the toxicity outcomes of proton or carbon‐ion therapy (together known as particle beam therapy [PBT]) for primary nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).Materials and methodsWe searched PubMed and Scopus electronic databases to identify original studies reporting toxicity outcomes following PBT of primary NPC. Quality assessment was performed using NIH's Quality Assessment Tool. Reports were extracted for information on demographics, main results, and clinical and dose factors correlates. Meta‐analysis was performed using the random‐effects model.ResultsTwelve studies were selected (six using mixed particle‐photon beams, five performed comparisons to photon‐based therapy). The pooled event rates for acute grade ≥2 toxicities mucositis, dermatitis, xerostomia weight loss are 46% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]—29%–64%, I2 = 87%), 47% (95% CI—28%–67%, I2 = 87%), 16% (95% CI—9%–29%, I2 = 76%), and 36% (95% CI—27%–47%, I2 = 45%), respectively. Only one late endpoint (xerostomia grade ≥2) has sufficient data for analysis with pooled event rate of 9% (95% CI—3%–29%, I2 = 77%), lower than intensity‐modulated radiotherapy 27% (95% CI—10%–54%, I2 = 95%). For most endpoints with significant differences between the PBT and photon‐based therapies, PBT resulted in better outcomes. In two studies where dose distribution was studied, doses to the organs at risk were independent risk factors for toxicities.ConclusionPBT may reduce the risk of acute toxicities for patients treated for primary NPC, likely due to dose reduction to critical structures. The pooled event rate for toxicities derived in this study can be a guide for patient counseling.
IntroductionDelta‐radiomics models are potentially able to improve the treatment assessment than single‐time point features. The purpose of this study is to systematically synthesize the performance of delta‐radiomics‐based models for radiotherapy (RT)‐induced toxicity.MethodsA literature search was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and Embase databases in October 2022. Retrospective and prospective studies on the delta‐radiomics model for RT‐induced toxicity were included based on predefined PICOS criteria. A random‐effect meta‐analysis of AUC was performed on the performance of delta‐radiomics models, and a comparison with non‐delta radiomics models was included.ResultsOf the 563 articles retrieved, 13 selected studies of RT‐treated patients on different types of cancer (HNC = 571, NPC = 186, NSCLC = 165, oesophagus = 106, prostate = 33, OPC = 21) were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Included studies show that morphological and dosimetric features may improve the predictive model performance for the selected toxicity. Four studies that reported both delta and non‐delta radiomics features with AUC were included in the meta‐analysis. The AUC random effects estimate for delta and non‐delta radiomics models were 0.80 and 0.78 with heterogeneity, I2 of 73% and 27% respectively.ConclusionDelta‐radiomics‐based models were found to be promising predictors of predefined end points. Future studies should consider using standardized methods and radiomics features and external validation to the reviewed delta‐radiomics model.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.