4.7 Article

Effectiveness of carbon ion radiotherapy in the treatment of skull-base chordomas

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.059

Keywords

particle therapy; carbon ion radiation therapy; skull-base chordoma; active beam delivery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of carbon ion radiotherapy in chordomas of the skull base. Methods and Materials: Between November 1998 and July 2005, a total of 96 patients with chordomas of the skull base have been treated with carbon ion radiation therapy (RT) using the raster scan technique at the Gesellschaft fur Schwerionenforschung (GSI) in Darmstadt, Germany. All patients had gross residual tumors. Median total dose was 60 CGE (range, 60-70 CGE) delivered in 20 fractions within 3 weeks. Local control and overall survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Toxicity was assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria (CTCAE v.3.0) and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) / European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer EORTC) score. Results: Mean follow-up was 31 months (range, 3-91 months). Fifteen patients developed local recurrences after carbon ion RT. The actuarial local control rates were 80.6% and 70.0% at 3 and 5 years, respectively. Target doses in excess of 60 CGE and primary tumor status were associated with higher local control rates. Overall survival was 94.8% and 88.5% at 3 and 5 years, respectively. Late toxicity consisted of optic nerve neuropathy RTOG/EORTC Grade 3 in 4.1% of the patients and necrosis of a fat plomb in 1 patient. Minor temporal lobe injury (RTOG/EORTC Grade 1-2) occurred in 7 patients (7.2%). Conclusions: Carbon ion RT offers an effective treatment option for skull-base chordomas with acceptable toxicity. Doses in excess of 75 CGE with 2 CGE per fraction are likely to increase local control probability. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc.

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