Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of proton therapy and photon therapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis.
He, Junyi; Liu, Yingxin; Zhang, Xiaojing; Li, Butuo; Yang, Linlin; Wang, Haohua; Wang, Shijiang; Yu, Jinming; Wang, Linlin.
Affiliation
  • He J; Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University Cancer Center, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
  • Liu Y; Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jiyan Road 440, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China.
  • Zhang X; Shandong First Medical University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong, China.
  • Li B; Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jiyan Road 440, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China.
  • Yang L; Shandong First Medical University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong, China.
  • Wang H; Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jiyan Road 440, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China.
  • Wang S; Shandong First Medical University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong, China.
  • Yu J; Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jiyan Road 440, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China.
  • Wang L; Shandong First Medical University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Biomark Res ; 12(1): 90, 2024 Aug 26.
Article de En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39183306
ABSTRACT
The use of proton therapy (PT) in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC) remains controversial, with insufficient evidence to determine its superiority over photon therapy (XRT). We conducted a systematic review of PT trials in ES-NSCLC, analyzing dosimetry, efficacy, and safety across to inform clinical decision-making. Our study showed that PT reduced lung and heart dosimetric parameters compared to XRT, with significant differences in lung V5, lung V10 and mean heart dose (MHD). In terms of efficacy, there were no significant differences in 1-year OS, 3-year OS and 3-year PFS between PT and XRT. For toxicity, no significant difference was observed in treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and radiation pneumonitis (RP). Single-arm analysis of PT found that V5, V10, V20 of lung and heart V5 were 13.4%, 11.3%, 7.9% and 0.7%, respectively. The mean lung dose and MHD were 4.15 Gy and 0.17 Gy, respectively. The single-arm pooled 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year OS rates for PT were 95.3%, 82.5%, 81.3% and 69.3%, respectively. PFS rate and local control rate at 3 years were 68.1% and 91.2%, respectively. The rates of TRAEs of grade ≥ 3 and grade ≥ 2 were 2.8% and 19.8%, respectively. The grade ≥ 2 RP occurred at a rate of 8.7%. In conclusion, PT had acceptable efficacy and safety, and was better at protecting organs at risk than XRT in ES-NSCLC. However, the survival and safety benefit of PT was not significant compared to XRT.
Mots clés

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Langue: En Journal: Biomark Res Année: 2024 Type de document: Article Pays d'affiliation: Chine Pays de publication: ENGLAND / ESCOCIA / GB / GREAT BRITAIN / INGLATERRA / REINO UNIDO / SCOTLAND / UK / UNITED KINGDOM

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Langue: En Journal: Biomark Res Année: 2024 Type de document: Article Pays d'affiliation: Chine Pays de publication: ENGLAND / ESCOCIA / GB / GREAT BRITAIN / INGLATERRA / REINO UNIDO / SCOTLAND / UK / UNITED KINGDOM