4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Clinical results of carbon ion radiotherapy at NIRS

Journal

JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH
Volume 48, Issue -, Pages A1-A13

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1269/jrr.48.A1

Keywords

carbon ions; charged particles; dose distribution; RBE; clinical study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In 1994 a Phase I/II clinical study on carbon ion radiotherapy was begun at NIRS using HIMAC, which was then the world's only heavy ion accelerator complex dedicated to medical use in a hospital environment. Among several types of ion species, we have chosen carbon ions for cancer therapy because they had the most optimal properties in terms of possessing, both physically and biologically, the most effective dose-localization in the body. The purpose of the clinical study was to investigate the efficacy of carbon ion radiotherapy against a variety of tumors as well as to develop effective techniques for delivering an efficient dose to the tumor. The RBE of carbon ions was estimated to be 2.0 to 3.0 along the SOBP for acute skin reactions. As of August 2006, a total of 2,867 patients had been entered into Phase I/II or Phase II studies and analyzed for toxicity and local tumor response. The results have shown that carbon ion radiotherapy has the potential ability to provide a sufficient dose to the tumor with acceptable morbidity in the surrounding normal tissues. Tumors that appear to respond favorably to carbon ions include locally advanced tumors and those with histologically non-squainous cell type of tumors such as adenocarcinoma, adenoid cystic carcinoma, malignant melanoma, hepatoma, and bone/soft tissue sarcoma. By taking advantage of the biological and physical properties of high-LET radiation, the efficacy of treatment regimens with small fractions in short treatment times has been confirmed for almost all types of tumors in carbon ion radiotherapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available