4.7 Article

A phase I/II study of gemcitabine-concurrent proton radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer without distant metastasis

Journal

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
Volume 103, Issue 1, Pages 25-31

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.12.029

Keywords

Proton radiotherapy; Gemcitabine; Pancreatic cancer; Locally advanced; Chemoradiotherapy

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24591840, 22390234, 23241023] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We conducted the study to assess the feasibility and efficacy of gemcitabine-concurrent proton radiotherapy (GPT) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Materials and methods: Of all 50 patients who participated in the study, 5 patients with gastrointestinal (GI)-adjacent LAPC were enrolled in P-1 (50 Gy equivalent [GyE] in 25 fractions) and 5 patients with non-GI-adjacent LAPC in P-2 (70.2 GyE in 26 fractions), and 40 patients with LAPC regardless of GI-adjacency in P-3 (67.5 GyE in 25 fractions using the field-within-a-field technique). In every protocol, gemcitabine (800 mg/m(2)/week for 3 weeks) was administered concurrently. Every patient received adjuvant chemotherapy including gemcitabine after GPT within the tolerable limit. Results: The median follow-up period was 12.5 months. The scheduled GPT was feasible for all except 6 patients (12%) due to acute hematologic or Cl toxicities. Grade 3 or greater late gastric ulcer and hemorrhage were seen in 5 patients (10%) in P-2 and P-3. The one-year freedom from local-progression, progression-free, and overall survival rates were 81.7%, 64.3%, and 76.8%, respectively. Conclusion: GPT was feasible and showed high efficacy. Although the number of patients and the follow-up periods are insufficient, the clinical results seem very encouraging. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 103 (2012) 25-31

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available