Charged particle therapy versus photon therapy for paranasal sinus and nasal cavity malignant diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patel, Samir H.; Wang, Zhen; Wong, William W.; Murad, M. Hassan; Buckey, C.; Mohammed, Khaled; Alahdab, Fares; Altayar, Osama; Nabhan, Mohammed; Schild, Steven E.; Foote, Robert L.

doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70268-2

Cited by 213 publications

(168 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

163

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mindful of these caveats, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of noncomparative observation studies concluded that patients with malignant diseases of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses who received proton therapy seemed to have better outcomes than those receiving photon therapy. 54 A review of proton therapy in patients with H&N cancers was recently published that included 14 retrospective reviews and 4 prospective nonrandomized studies. 25 The 2- to 5-year local control rates were as low as 17.5% for T4 or recurrent paranasal sinus cancers and as high as 95% in other types of tumors.…”

Section: Particle Therapiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Head and Neck Cancers, Version 1.2015

Pfister

Spencer

Brizel

et al. 2015

J Natl Compr Canc Netw

199

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the 2015 NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck (H&N) Cancers. These Insights describe the different types of particle therapy that may be used to treat H&N cancers, in contrast to traditional radiation therapy (RT) with photons (x-ray). Research is ongoing regarding the different types of particle therapy, including protons and carbon ions, with the goals of reducing the long-term side effects from RT and improving the therapeutic index. For the 2015 update, the NCCN H&N Cancers Panel agreed to delete recommendations for neutron therapy for salivary gland cancers, because of its limited availability, which has decreased over the past 2 decades; the small number of patients in the United States who currently receive this treatment; and concerns that the toxicity of neutron therapy may offset potential disease control advantages.

show abstract

Section: Particle Therapiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Head and Neck Cancers, Version 1.2015

Pfister

Spencer

Brizel

et al. 2015

J Natl Compr Canc Netw

199

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Toxicity related to treatment is not well described in the adult or pediatric EN literature and comparisons to our cohort are limited by small patient numbers and heterogeneity in the use of chemotherapy and surgery. A meta-analysis by Patel et al suggests that charged particle therapy for paranasal sinus and nasal cavity malignancies may result in reduced neurological event rates relative to photon radiotherapy [43]. Similarly, dosimetric data from orbital and head and neck pediatric patients with rhabdomyosarcoma have shown that compared to IMRT, protons can significantly reduce the amount of radiation received by optic structures as well as other structures critical to pediatric development such as the temporal lobes, hypothalamus and pituitary, and facial bones [25].…”

Section: Fig 2 Time To Event Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proton therapy for pediatric and adolescent esthesioneuroblastoma

Lucas

Ladra

MacDonald³

et al. 2015

Pediatric Blood & Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The value of protons for the most complex head and neck sites (nasopharynx and paranasal sinuses) resides in the ability to limit the dose to optic structures and brainstem and secondarily the mandible and salivary glands and PBT has been used on a clinical trial basis for the treatment of salivary tumors, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, oropharynx,sinonasal, and paranasal sinus malignancies [79][80][81][82][83] . In these tumors PBT can offer the opportunity of dose escalation for cancers where loco-regional control is currently limited by an inability to adequately deliver therapeutic doses without excessive risk of toxicity or minimizing exposure of normal tissues in order to reduce toxicity for patients with possible long-term control with currently-prescribed doses, but at the cost of potential significant toxicity [81] .…”

Section: Head and Neck Cancersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The actual Interest in Radiotherapy for the Utilization of Proton Beam, Highlighting Physics Basis, Technology and Common Clinical Indications

Amichetti

2016

Journal of Tumor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. Since that years, commercial entities began to build cyclotrons and synchrotrons for clinical purposes. Over the last 10 years, PBT has gathered more interest in the scientific community and more media and patient attention and is now flourishing in the US and abroad. As of December, 2015, 57 proton therapy centers are in operation worldwide, others are under construction and many more in a planning phase [3] . Most patients who have been treated with heavy-particle therapy were treated with protons: PTCOG (Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group) reports that between 1954 and 2014, 137 000 patients globally received part or all of their radiation therapy with particles, and in particular 86% of them with protons [4] . The generation of these particles and the building of dedicated centers, however, requires large investments and operational costs and big infrastructure. Only relatively few studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of proton therapy and the effects are surrounded with uncertainty [5] being the cost-effectiveness still the core of the controversy around the use of PBT. ABSTRACTManaging expensive technology is a debated issue in modern radiation oncology. Proton beam therapy (PBT) represents, considering its cost and its foreseen benefits, a typical case of discussion waiting for more robust results demonstrating the presumable clinical gains against the available radiation therapy (XRT) treatment alternatives based on the use of photons. The treatment with particles utilizes many different beams (neutrons, protons, pions, or helium, neon, argon, and carbon ions) that represent a distinct entity respect conventional XRT which uses photons. PBT is the most common form of heavy-particle radiation therapy used so far; it is not a new invention, being its clinical use proposed in a seminal article by R. Wilson in 1946 [1] and the first patients treated in 1954 at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California [2] . Since cyclotron or synchrotron, used to accelerate protons to therapeutic energies, were used primarily for research in particle or nuclear physics, the initial clinical activity in proton therapy was carried out in research facilities and the use of protons in clinical practice has grown slowly for several years in non-clinical setting. More than fifty years later, after a long period of seminal work in a limited number of Institutions, PBT has gained public attention in recent years because of the rapidly increasing number of centers around the world, regardless of their high cost. Hospital-based proton beam facilities have been in operation since 1990 after the opening of the first dedicated clinical center at Loma Linda Medical

show abstract

Charged particle therapy versus photon therapy for paranasal sinus and nasal cavity malignant diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 213 publications

References 55 publications

Head and Neck Cancers, Version 1.2015

Head and Neck Cancers, Version 1.2015

Proton therapy for pediatric and adolescent esthesioneuroblastoma

The actual Interest in Radiotherapy for the Utilization of Proton Beam, Highlighting Physics Basis, Technology and Common Clinical Indications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About