Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A Single-Institution Prospective Study To Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Real- Time Image-Gated Spot-Scanning Proton Therapy (RGPT) for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: In real-time image-gated spot-scanning proton therapy (RGPT), the dose distribution is distorted by gold fiducial markers placed in the prostate. Distortion can be suppressed by using small markers and more than 2 fields, but additional fields may increase the dose to organs at risk. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate the safety and short-term clinical outcome of RGPT for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Based on the previously reported frequency of early adverse events (AE) and the noninferiority margin of 10%, the required number of cases was calculated to be 43 using the one-sample binomial test by the Southwest Oncology Group statistical tools with the one-sided significance level of 2.5% and the power 80%. Patients with localized prostate cancer were enrolled and 3 to 4 pure gold fiducial markers of 1.5-mm diameter were inserted in the prostate. The prescribed dose was 70 Gy(relative biologic effectiveness) in 30 fractions, and treatment was performed with 3 fields from the left, right, and the back, or 4 fields from either side of slightly anterior and posterior oblique fields. The primary endpoint was the frequency of early AE (≥grade 2) and the secondary endpoint was the biochemical relapse-free survival rate and the frequency of late AE.

RESULTS: Forty-five cases were enrolled between 2015 and 2017, and all patients completed the treatment protocol. The median follow-up period was 63.0 months. The frequency of early AE (≥grade 2) was observed in 4 cases (8.9%), therefore the noninferiority was verified. The overall 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate was 88.9%. As late AE, grade 2 rectal bleeding was observed in 8 cases (17.8%).

CONCLUSIONS: The RGPT for prostate cancer with 1.5-mm markers and 3- or 4- fields was as safe as conventional proton therapy in early AE, and its efficacy was comparable with previous studies.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app