Pascal Pommier, Stephanie E. Combs, and Tadashi Kamada
PRESENT STATUS AND PERSPECTIVE FOR CARBON IONS
Carbon ion therapy is an innovative radiotherapy modality that is mostly dedicated to cancers considered as unresectable and radioresistant to photons. Its radiobiologic properties combine the advantages of the high-dose distribution conformity of protons for deep tumors (superior to photons and neutrons) and the higher biologic effectiveness (compared to photons and protons) of high linear energy transfer (LET) particles such as neutrons. Moreover, the combination of the biologic and ballistic properties of carbon ions greatly reduces the treatment period compared with photon or proton radiotherapy.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
The use of charged particles (protons and ions) for clinical applications was first proposed in 1946 by R. R. Wilson.1 A decade later, the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) in California started patient irradiation. The LBL began with protons in 1954 and then with light ions. From 1957 through 1974, helium and higher particles were used in more than 2,000 patients. From 1974 through 1992, the year of closure of the center, neon ions were primarily used in 433 patients. Few patients were treated with carbon ions at the LBL. Miscellaneous cancer types were treated with neon ions, mainly base of skull tumors with several pathologic types, including chordoma, chondrosarcoma, meningioma, and adenoid cystic carcinomas (ACCs), as well as osteosarcomas, sacral chordoma, glioblastoma, cholangiocarcinoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and prostate cancer. Despite severe limitations in terms of beam application (fixed horizontal beam only), quality of imaging modalities available at that time, and limited periods for clinical applications (30% of the Bevalac running time), the LBL experience permitted first to report a high local tumor control in radioresistant tumors, especially with neon particles, and to demonstrate the feasibility and the safety of high LET particle therapy.2–6
National Institute of Radiological Sciences
The heavy ion radiotherapy project in Japan started in 1984. A unique double-synchrotron ring heavy ion accelerator system dedicated to the project was designed and constructed. It system consists of two ion sources, a radiofrequency quadrupole (RFQ) linear accelerator, an Alvarez linear accelerator, two synchrotron rings, a high-energy beam transport system, and an irradiation system. It was completed in October 1993 at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) in Chiba, Japan, and was named the heavy ion medical accelerator in Chiba (HIMAC). At NIRS, there are three treatment rooms with fixed vertical and horizontal beam lines. The accelerated energy of the vertical carbon ion beam is 290 MeV per nucleon or 350 MeV per nucleon, and that of the horizontal beam is 290 MeV per nucleon or 400 MeV per nucleon. The range of the 290-MeV per nucleon carbon ion beam is approximately 15 cm in water, that of the 350-MeV per nucleon beam is 20 cm, and that of the 400-MeV per nucleon carbon ion beam is 25 cm. Maximum field size is 15 cm by 15 cm.7 To produce uniform irradiation fields, a passive beam delivery system is employed with a pair of wobbler magnets and a scatterer. The range shifter is applied for adjusting the residual range of carbon ions in the patient and the ridge filter to spread out the Bragg peak in the depth-dose distribution of carbon ions. After commissioning of the system, including preclinical biologic study, in June 1994, NIRS started heavy ion radiotherapy using carbon ion beams generated by HIMAC.8
Since 1994, clinical studies to develop safe and secure irradiation technologies such as respiration gating and optimized dose fractionation for various cancers have been conducted. All carbon therapies have been performed as prospective phase I/II and II clinical trials in an attempt to identify tumor sites suitable for this treatment, including radioresistant tumors, and to determine optimal dose fractionation, especially for hypofractionation in common cancers. In the phase I/II studies to confirm the safety of carbon ion therapy and to obtain a clue to an antitumor effect, the number of fractions and treatment period were fixed for each disease, and the total dose was gradually increased by 5% to 10%. When the recommended doses were determined in the phase I/II studies, they were incorporated into the phase II studies. At NIRS, more than 6,000 patients have been treated with carbon ion beams for past 17 years, and the clinical efficacy of carbon ion therapy has been demonstrated for many malignant diseases.
In 2011, a new medical facility opened at HIMAC that uses the existing synchrotron. It comprises three rooms: two with a robotic arm–controlled patient table for fixed horizontal and vertical scanning irradiation ports and the third one equipped with a lightweight rotating gantry with the superconducting magnets. NIRS completed installation of scanning equipment and commissioning of the system at one room with fixed beam lines and started a clinical trial in May 2011.
Present Status and Perspective for Carbon Ions in Japan
At present, five carbon ion therapy facilities are operating around the world, with three of them in Japan. In 1984, the Japanese government embarked on a program of carbon ion therapy at the first facility in Chiba. Clinical studies that began in 1994 have shown promising outcomes in general and have led to the development of the other carbon ion therapy facilities in Japan.
The second center, the Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center in Hyogo, Japan, was established in 2001—the world’s first ion beam facility providing both proton and carbon ion beams. By the end of September 2010, 2,735 patients were treated at Hyogo, including 915 patients receiving carbon ion therapy. Its lower energy (320 MeV per nucleon) and smaller field size (10 cm by 10 cm) for carbon ion beam compared with HIMAC restricted indications of carbon ion therapy for smaller and shallower tumors.
The third Japanese carbon ion therapy facility was completed in March 2010 at Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center. It is a concise carbon ion therapy accelerator complex almost one-third the size and construction cost of HIMAC with the same performance.
The fourth facility, SAGA HIMAT (heavy ion medical accelerator in Tosu), a concise Gunma-type system located in the southern part of Japan, is under construction and will begin treating patients in 2013. The fifth is at planning stage in Kanagawa prefecture near Tokyo and will start its operation in 2015.
Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung
In Germany, carbon ion research and treatment was made possible at a basically preclinical research institution. Beginning in 1997 at Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI) in Darmstadt, Germany, patients were treated with carbon ions by the Department of Radiation Oncology in Heidelberg, Germany. Within the research context of GSI, three beam time blocks per year were provided for patient treatment. As a collaborative effort consisting of clinicians, biologists, physicists, and engineers from the University Hospital of Heidelberg, the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) in Heidelberg, Germany, the Forschungszentrum Rossendorf in Dresden, and the Biophysics Group at GSI, patient treatment could be realized accompanied by extensive preclinical research.
For beam delivery provided by a synchrotron, the intensity-modulated raster scanning technique was developed, and biologic dose calculation was refined using the local effect model (LEM) developed by Kraft and Scholz.9–11Clinical efficacy of this approach was shown and validated in more than 600 patients with special focus on radioresistant tumors such as chordomas and chondrosarcomas of the skull base, ACCs, and high-grade meningiomas.
Heidelberg Ion Therapy Center
In Europe, the only center treating patients with carbon ion radiotherapy is the Heidelberg Ion Therapy Center (HIT) in Heidelberg, Germany. The center is equipped with a synchrotron, providing different particle species for three treatment rooms. Two rooms are equipped with a horizontal beam line; in the third room, the world’s first carbon ion gantry has been realized. Since November 2009, the center has been in clinical operation offering particle treatment for approximately 1,300 patients per year. The center is directly connected to the existing Department of Radiation Oncology to allow for a streamlined work flow, and patients can be treated as both inpatients and outpatients.12,13 The center delivers particle treatments via active raster scanning; as well, treatment planning and biologic plan optimization has been adopted from the work performed previously at GSI.14
Uptake of clinical routine is based on the indications treated at GSI, focusing on skull base chordomas, chondrosarcomas, and ACCs.12 Subsequently, several clinical studies on varying indications started recruiting with different treatment concepts, including a randomized trial of carbon ion versus proton radiotherapy.15–17
Perspective for Carbon Ions in Europe, the United States, and Asia
To date, HIT is the only facility in Germany treating with carbon ions. Facilities in Marburg and Kiel, Germany, have been built but have not taken up clinical routine. In Europe, the National Centre for Oncological Treatment (CNAO) in Pavia, Italy, is a center equipped for proton and carbon ion treatments that started taking up clinical service in mid-2011. In Austria, the carbon facility (MedAUSTRON) at Wiener Neustadt is under construction and will offer proton and carbon ion treatments. The creation of a carbon ion clinical facility (the ETOILE project) in France is under discussion.
In Asia, a radiotherapy facility including photons, protons, and carbon ion beams is under construction in Shanghai.
More than 50 years after the world’s first carbon ion therapy in Berkeley, there is a growing interest within the radiotherapy community to again invest in that domain.
TECHNICAL ASPECTS: PRESENT STATUS AND PERSPECTIVE
Beam Delivery
The current passive beam delivery system used in Chiba is a quite reliable and robust system and has had proven stable performance at HIMAC since 1994. A respiratory-gated irradiation technique was also put into practical use for the treatment of moving targets with the passive beam delivery system.18 The similar systems are adopted at Hyogo and Gunma University.
A scanning irradiation method, which uses “narrow” pencil beams of carbon ions to cover a target volume by superimposing the spot beams of carbon ions slice by slice has been developed and applied at GSI and then at HIT. The new facilities at HIMAC Pavia and in Germany and Austria are (or will be) equipped with this system. Compared to passive methods, the scanning irradiation techniques permit a more conformal irradiation of the target volume, especially with a better sparing of the normal tissue located in the beam channel entrance (i.e., skin). Therefore, the technique is more appropriate for the treatment of complex-shaped lesions that cannot be adequately irradiated by the passive beams. The scanning also eliminates the need for constructing compensation filters as well as patient-specific collimators.
Gantry
To date, no gantry is available for treatment with carbon ions, whereas gantries are standard in proton therapy, primarily owing to the immense constructions required for building such a gantry to accommodate the large size and weight of the necessary magnets for beam delivery. However, to provide optimal dose distributions, especially for paraspinal tumors and tumors of the gastrointestinal tract, the use of horizontal beams is limiting treatments in these patients.
The world’s first carbon ion gantry was designed and constructed at HIT (with a total weight of more than 600 tons of steel, about 420 tons precisely turning around the patient, and a length of 25 m and diameter of 13 m). Clinical operation of the gantry is anticipated for mid-2012.
A lightweight rotating gantry using superconducting magnets has been designed and should be installed in the new HIMAC facility.
Gating and Tracking
To reduce the enlargement of irradiated volume with respiration, a respiratory-gated irradiation technique was developed for carbon ion therapy at HIMAC. In this technique, the irradiation-gate signal is generated only when the target is located at the designed position and the synchrotron can extract a beam. Thus, one of the key technologies for respiratory-gated irradiation is the beam-extraction method from the synchrotron according to the gate signal. For this purpose, the radio frequency–knockout (RF-KO) slow-extraction method, which utilizes a transverse beam heating by an RF-field tuned with a wave number of a horizontal betatron oscillation, was developed19 as well as the respiratory-gated irradiation system.18 In this system, the respiration signal is generated by observation of movement of light-emitting diode set on the surface of the patient’s body through a position-sensitive detector. The respiratory-gated irradiation system has been utilized primarily for treatment of liver and lung tumors since 1996 and has been very effective for reduction of fraction number in these tumors moving along with respiration.
Treatment of moving organs with ions applied with the raster scanning technique confront the physicist and clinician with novel challenges. Because of the interplay effect of the scanning beam and the moving target, substantial over- and underdosage within the target volume is generated; therefore, it cannot be precisely calculated and guaranteed that the planned dose will be applied homogeneously.20 Thus, effective compensation mechanisms are necessary for the treatment of moving targets.
Several approaches for moving target irradiation are under investigation: monitoring breathing motion and using the information for gating strategies (irradiating during set gating windows) can significantly reduce interaction.20Another approach is the rescanning technique: the volume is not scanned by the beam with the whole calculated dose (i.e., particle number); the volume is scanned several times, and the particles (or dose) are divided onto the scanning runs. With this concept, a more homogeneous spread of the particles and dose over the volume can be achieved, with increasing homogeneity with the number of scanning runs.21 A sophisticated concept is monitoring organ motion and making the beam follow the movement of the target volume; this requires fast communication between the beam-scanning system and the monitoring setup to provide real-time tracking of the volume.20
The concepts presented are under evaluation; potentially, the technique used may depend on the tumor type or anatomic region treated. Additionally, target volume concepts might help to compensate for some minor organ movement. However, using only compensatory target volumes, such as internal target volumes (ITVs) used in photon radiotherapy, will not suffice.20 Variation of spot scanning size and reduction of grid size can help to compensate organ motion as well. It is most likely that a combination of several approaches—that is, specific target volume, modification of spot size, and perhaps gating—will provide optimal and clinically applicable dose distributions.
Beam Imaging
As a by-product of particle radiotherapy, b+ activity is generated and can be monitored using conventional positron emission tomography (PET) scanners to in vivo monitoring of dose delivery. Several centers offering particle therapy have established this possibility.
At GSI, an online PET imager was built into the treatment cave, allowing for online monitoring of b+ activity during each fraction and enabling later correlation with the planned and calculated treatment plan for passive beam delivery centers, such as Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston or centers in Japan.
Promising experience in PET imaging of proton and carbon ion therapy has been obtained for more than 50 patients monitored after passive proton treatments in the United States and Japan, and more than 400 patients have been monitored during scanned carbon ion beam irradiation at GSI. At the GSI pilot project, the value of PET for improving the accuracy of the semiempirical computed tomography (CT)-range calibration curve employed by the treatment planning system, as well as for detecting and quantifying deviations between planned and actual treatment delivery owing to patient misalignments or anatomic changes over the course of fractionated therapy, could be demonstrated.22 At HIT, a commercial PET/CT scanner has been installed in a dedicated room adjacent to the treatment area, and clinical evaluation is ongoing within a prospective trial.
FIGURE 20.1. Bragg peak (protons versus carbon ions versus photons)
FIGURE 20.2. Spread-out Bragg peak (protons versus carbon ions versus photons).
FIGURE 20.3. Design of a carbon ion spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP). The high LET region of the carbon ion beam is located in the distal part of the Bragg peak, and the SOBP becomes a weighted function of several Bragg peaks at various energies, which results in a dilution of the dose-average LET in the target volume. Therefore, the physical dose (Gray) has to be decreased as the relative biologic efficiency (RBE) value rises so as to have a flat biologically effective dose across the SOBP.
CARBON ION RADIOBIOLOGIC PROPERTIES: RATIONALE FOR PATIENT SELECTION
Carbon ions for clinical applications are characterized by two main properties: (a) a depth-dose distribution with a sharp maximal energy deposition at a definite depth (the Bragg peak) related to the beam incidence energy, with almost no dose deposited beyond this peak (Fig. 20.1) and (b) a biologic efficiency increasing at the end of the beam’s range within the Bragg peak.
Although not demonstrated by large prospective randomized clinical trials, the potential clinical gains achievable by these ballistic advantages led to the definition of several “standard” indications for proton therapy (i.e., base of skull chordoma and chondrosarcoma, eye melanoma, selected pediatric brain tumors).23,24
Dose Distribution: Bragg Peak and Spread-Out Bragg Peak
Although similar, there are some notable differences between the dose-depth distribution of protons and carbon ions that may have clinical impacts (the presence of a “fragmentation tail” for carbon ions owing to nuclear interactions, allowing high-quality PET imaging) and a very narrow penumbra for carbon ions compared to protons.24
Similarly to protons, carbon ion beams are spread out to conform to the target, resulting in the spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) after a low dose “plateau” within the entrance channel beyond the target (Figs. 20.2 and 20.3). This can be achieved using several techniques, mainly with passive scattering, but also with more advanced techniques (e.g., pencil beam with wobbling or uniform scanning) has to achieve a lower dose deposit within the normal tissue in the entrance of the beam (proximally to the tumor volume) while optimizing the distal dose distribution and therefore a higher dose distribution conformation.
Treatment Plan Intercomparisons
There have been several publications based on comparative dosimetric analyses of dose distribution outcomes with photon intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus particle therapy (protons and/or carbon ions) with passive or active beam delivery. The general conclusion of publications dealing with protons is that similar dose distribution can be achieved with the target volume for all techniques but that particle therapy permits lowering of the dose delivered to the surrounding critical normal tissues even for large target volumes.25–28
Few treatment planning studies with carbon ions have been published thus far. For similar and strict constraints to critical organs at risk, Schulz-Ertner et al.29 have demonstrated that carbon ions alone or a combination of carbon ions and photon IMRT was superior to photon IMRT alone for spinal chordomas and ACC with infiltration of the skull base.29,30 Amirul et al.31 have noted a dosimetric benefit both for tumor coverage and OAR preservation for selected head and neck tumors.
Integral Dose
Another advantage of particle beams is that fewer fields are required to achieve an acceptable dose distribution for difficult cases, which leads to a dramatic decrease of the integral dose (and potentially a lower incidence of radio-induced cancer, especially in pediatric indications) compared to intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMXT).32
Biologic Effectiveness and Equivalent Biologic Rate
As with neutrons, carbon ion interactions are characterized by a high LET that provides for a given physical dose for a higher biologic effect compared to low LET irradiation modalities (photons and protons). Therefore, the dose delivered with high LET particles is prescribed in Gray equivalents (GyE) or cobalt Gray equivalents (CGE) equal to the measured physical dose in Gray multiplied by a relative biologic efficiency (RBE) factor. The RBE is the ratio of the dose of radiation required to produce a certain biologic effect with photons relative to the dose required to produce the same effect with another form of ionizing radiation (such as protons and light ions).
Interestingly for clinical applications, this higher biologic efficiency, which may lead to a higher tumor control probability (TCP) for radioresistant tumors but may also increase the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), is limited to the Bragg peak (thus to the SOBP). Within the “entrance” channel where the main proportion of organs at risk should be, there is no additional biologic effect.
The RBE of carbon ions is difficult to calculate; for dose-reporting purposes, a value of three is often utilized based on neutron experience. However, several other parameters should be taken into account, such as dose per fraction, fractionation, tissue type, target volume, and pO2 value at each point in the irradiated volume as well as the variation in RBE along the SOBP (higher at the distal part than at the proximal part)24 (Fig. 20.3). In NIRS, the LET dependency is taken into account in the design of clinical dose distribution by choosing the 10% survival of the human salivary gland tumor cells as end points; this was evaluated through TCP analysis for non–small cell lung cancer.33,34 The LEM, a generic model allowing for RBE-calculation in various tissue types and for various end points, has been developed and applied at GSI and is in use for biologic treatment planning at HIT.9,10
Dose Fractionation
The capacity for normal and cancer tissues to repair from sublethal radiation injury is sharply reduced with high LET radiation both for normal tissues and cancer cells. This leads to questioning the need for dose fractionation (applying a standard fractionation scheme with a low dose per fraction) justified in low LET therapy (photons and protons) by a higher kinetic of sublethal radiation injury repair for normal tissue versus radiosensitive tumors.
Experimental data with high LET particles did not find any differences in RBE values between tumor and normal cell lines in standard culture condition.35,36 However, experiments conducted with fast neutrons and carbon ions have demonstrated that increasing the dose per fraction tends to lower the RBE of both the tumor and normal tissues but with a more important decrease for the normal tissue given a higher therapeutic ratio for short-course hypofractionation schemes with carbon ion radiotherapy.35,37 At NIRS in Chiba, Japan, hypofractionated carbon ion radiotherapy has been investigated systematically for a variety of tumor entities, and it seems that a significant reduction of overall treatment time can be accomplished for many tumor entities without enhancing toxicity.8
Applications for Patient Selection and Radiotherapy Schemes
To summarize, the best indications for carbon ions based on their biologic advantages over low LET radiation (photons and protons) and poor dose-depth distribution (photons and neutron) are tumors that demonstrate low radiosensitivity when treated with photons, particularly if the tumor is surrounded by radiosensitive normal tissue.
Carbon ion biologic and physical properties also justify the use of a larger fraction dose than that used in conventional radiotherapy schemes with an impact on patient quality of life (shorter overall treatment time) as well as a major economical impact (reduction of the cost for the health insurance).
CLINICAL DATA
Primarily based on the clinical experience of NIRS and GSI, various clinical data are available to assess the efficacy and tolerance of carbon ion radiotherapy in miscellaneous tumor locations and pathologies.8,23,24,38
To date, medical data on carbon ion therapy rely on prospective phase I (dose-escalation and hypofractionation assessments) and phase II trials conducted in more than 7,000 patients, mostly at NIRS and GSI. The main clinical data are summarized for each tumor site in Tables 20.1 through 20.7.
Head and Neck Cancers (Table 20.1)
Carbon ion therapy has been applied in several tumor types for primary or recurrent cancers (unresectable or R1-R2 tumors) and in some selected cases as a second irradiation in phase I and II prospective studies.39–49
The most impressive data have been obtained for ACC, malignant mucosal melanoma, and sarcomas known as highly radioresistant tumors.39,40,44–46,48,50
When compared to NIRS historical data, a dose response was demonstrated for sarcoma in the NIRS experience in terms of 3-year local control (91.8% vs. 23.6% for 70.4 GyE vs. 57.6 or 64 GyE) and 3-year overall survival (74.1% vs. 42.9% for 70.4 GyE vs. 57.6 or 64 GyE).44
The comparison of the clinical outcome for locally advanced ACC treated within the same period by the Heidelberg radiotherapy team either with a combination of photon IMRT with a carbon ion boost (39 patients) (total median dose, 72 GyE) or with photon IMRT alone (29 patients) (median dose, 66 Gy) was in favor of carbon ion boost versus photons only with a 4-year locoregional control, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates of 77.5 versus 24.6 (p = 0.08), 53% versus 23% (p = 0.19), and 75.8 versus 77.9, respectively.48
Several prospective trials have been launched at HIT.51,52
Sarcoma (Soft Tissue and Osteosarcoma) and Chordomas (Tables 20.2 and 20.3)
The initial phase I trial (64 patients) conducted at NIRS from June 1996 to February 2000 has established a reference dose and fractionation of 70.4 GyE (16 fractions, 4 weeks).53
Since then, to August 2011, 495 patients (514 tumors) were entered in a phase II trial: 405 bone sarcoma/chordoma (chordoma in 177, chondrosarcoma in 81, osteosarcoma in 81, Ewing/primitive neuroectodermal tumor [PNET] in 28, miscellaneous in 38) and 109 soft tissue sarcomas (malignant fibrous histiocytoma [MFH] in 21, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor [MPNST] in 15, synovial sarcoma in 11, leiomyosarcoma in 11, miscellaneous in 51). The 2- and 5-year overall survival were 79% and 59%, respectively, and 2- and 5-year local control were 85% and 69%, respectively, with 2% of grade 3/4 skin/soft tissue late toxicity (toxicity primarily related to the tumor volume and its location that may be reduced by advanced beam delivery techniques).54
Sacral Chordoma
Carbon ion radiotherapy appears effective and safe in the management of patients with sacral chordoma. It offers a promising alternative to surgery with a high local control, similar, see superior to surgical procedures alone55 or with adjuvant proton therapy56 and a higher functional outcome with few or no severe toxicities regarding urinary and anorectal function.54,57,58 The occurrence of severe neuropathy was related to the dose level (>73.6 GyE). The application of particle radiotherapy for tumors adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract may be restricted because of the low tolerance of the intestine. In that situation, a surgical spacer may be placed before particle radiotherapy.59 To note, a more than 10% of tumor volume increase at the end of the radiotherapy without further progression was described in 50% of cases.60
TABLE 20.1 HEAD AND NECK CANCERS (ADENOID CYSTIC CARCINOMA, MUCOSAL MELANOMA, ADENOCARCINOMA, SARCOMA)
TABLE 20.2 SKULL BASE (AND SPINAL) CHORDOMA AND CHONDROSARCOMA
Osteosarcoma
Several series with protons and photons have demonstrated that high-dose irradiation may lead to a relatively high local control at 5 years (approximately 70%) in unresected or incompletely resected osteosarcoma, with a 5-year overall survival of 40% to 67%.61,62
Similar results have been reported by NIRS in a series of 78 patients with unresectable osteosarcoma of the trunk (median diameter of 9 cm)—a location known to have the worst prognosis63,64—treated exclusively with carbon ions, with a 5-year local control and overall survival of 61% to 32%.65 Tumor volume was a major prognostic factor (5-year local control and overall survival of 87% and 46% for volume <500 cc).
A prospective study of nonresectable osteosarcoma has been launched at HIT.66
Base of Skull Chordoma and Chondrosarcoma
For base of skull chordoma and chondrosarcoma, similar results with a high local control rate have been reported.23,67,68 A dose-response relationship has been observed by Mizoe et al.67 and Schulz-Ertner et al.,68 with 3- to 5-year local control of 60% and 100%, respectively, for dose less or more than 60 GyE. Postoperative carbon ion radiotherapy should improve the survival rate and quality of life of patients with skull base chordomas after surgical removal of the tumor around the brain stem and the optic nerve.69
Combs et al.70 published their experience in 17 young adults and children (5 to 21 years; median age 18 years) treated with carbon ions for a primary (14 patients) or a recurrent (3 patients) chordoma (10 patients) or chondrosarcoma (10 patients). With a median 49-month follow-up, no severe toxicity was observed, and only one patient experienced a recurrence marginal to the treated volume.
The potential advantages of carbon ions over protons in base of skull chordoma and chondrosarcoma are being assessed in a randomized trial conducted by the HIT team.16,17
Retroperitoneal Sarcoma
Despite the very high risk for severe toxicity in retroperitoneal sarcoma, the preliminary experience of NIRS, including 24 patients, demonstrated a high local control (77% and 69% at 2 and 5 years, respectively) and overall survival (75% and 50% at 2 and 5 years, respectively) without grade 3 toxicities.71
TABLE 20.3 UNRESECTABLE BONE/SOFT TISSUE SARCOMAS AND SACRAL CHORDOMA (HEAD AND NECK EXCLUDED)
TABLE 20.4 BRAIN TUMORS: MENINGIOMA, ASTROCYTOMA, AND GLIOBLASTOMA
Meningioma (Table 20.4)
Results of carbon ions used as a boost (18 GyE) after photon therapy (50.4 Gy) has been reported in 10 patients by the Heidelberg team.72 Compared to their own experience with high-dose photon therapy,73 a trend for a higher local control and survival was reported. Similar results have also been reported by NIRS.74
A prospective protocol has been launched by HIT to evaluate a carbon ion boost applied to the macroscopic tumor in conjunction with photon radiotherapy in patients with atypical meningiomas after incomplete resection or biopsy.75
Astrocytoma, Glioblastoma (Table 20.4)
A dose effect has been observed in a phase I/II series of 48 patients treated with a combination of photons, boost with carbon ion (dose escalation), and concomitant chemotherapy.76 NIRS also reported their experience in 14 diffuse grade 2 astrocytoma patients treated with exclusive carbon ion therapy, also reporting a high local control for high carbon ion dose and no severe toxicities.77
Two prospective randomized protocols are ongoing at HIT for glioblastoma: (a) a randomized phase II trial evaluating a carbon ion boost applied after combined radiochemotherapy with temozolomide versus a proton boost after radiochemotherapy with temozolomide in patients with primary glioblastoma15 and (b) a phase I/II trial reirradiation using carbon ions compared to fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) in patients with recurrent gliomas.78
Reirradiation (Brain, Skull Base, Head and Neck, and Sacral Region)
Thanks to its ballistic and biologic properties, carbon ion therapy has been performed for reirradiation after local recurrence following photon (or carbon ion) therapy.
HIT reported their experience in patients with recurrent tumors of the brain, skull base, head and neck, and sacral region (mainly skull base chordoma).42,79 Survival after reirradiation was 86% at 24 months and 43% at 60 months. For skull base tumors, local tumor control after reirradiation was 92% at 24 months and 64% at 36 months.79
Lung Cancer (Table 20.5)
Stage I non–small cell lung cancer has been a model for NIRS to assess the feasibility of dose escalation and hypofractionation with exclusive carbon ion therapy.80
From 1994 to 1999, phase I/II trials established two standard radiotherapy protocols, leading to more than 95% local control with a low severe toxicity (grade 3 pneumonitis in 2.7%): 90 GyE in 18 fractions over 6 weeks and 72 GyE in 9 fractions over 3 weeks.81,82 The results of the later fractionation were confirmed in a phase II trial including 50 patients.83 At the same time, another phase II trial validated another radiotherapy schedule using only 4 fractions with two levels of dose according to tumor size (52.8 and 60 GyE, respectively, for stage IA and IB).84
These results led to the initiation of a phase I/II single-fraction dose escalation protocol (from 28 to 50 GyE). This trial is in progress.
On multivariate analysis, overall survival outcomes obtained with carbon ions was significantly better when compared with conventional radiotherapy and similar to those obtained by stereotactic radiotherapy and protons.85
Liver (Table 20.6)
From 1995 to 2001, phase I dose escalation and hypofractionation studies (110 patients) have been conducted at NIRS,86 resulting in a phase II study (47 patients) with 52.8 GyE delivered in four sessions (1 week).87 A high local control was obtained (96% at 3 and 5 years) without severe toxicity (≥2 increase of the Child-Pugh score in 10%) but with a low overall survival related to the poor general status of these patients.
An even more hypofractionated scheme with only two fractions within a phase I and then a phase II study was developed (ongoing), showing a dose effect, and for the high-dose group (>40.8 GyE) a high local control rate (94.5% at 3 years) whatever the diameter of the tumor (100% for tumor >5 cm), and a low rate of severe toxicity (≥2 increase of the Child-Pugh score in 5% to 7%).87,88 The compensatory enlargement in the nonirradiated liver observed after carbon ion radiotherapy may have contribute to the improvement of the prognosis.89
Taking into account the alternative therapies, the optimal candidates for carbon ion therapy would be Child-Pugh A or B liver function, tumor diameter more than 3 cm, and tumor adjacent to the porta hepatis (size and locations more difficult to treat with radiofrequency ablation or percutaneous ethanol injection).88
A phase I study is planned at HIT.90
TABLE 20.5 STAGE I NON–SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER
Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer (Table 20.6)
Phase I/II studies have been conducted at NIRS since 2001 (an ongoing phase II study delivering 73.6 GyE in 16 fractions) for postoperative locally recurrent rectal cancer (no previous radiotherapy). Although most patients had tumors considered to be unresectable, results in 140 patients (148 lesions), including 118 patients treated with the highest dose, were comparable to the best published surgical results.91
Preliminary results in 23 patients also demonstrated a high disease-free survival (51%) for carbon ions (70.4 GyE in 16 fractions) used as a second irradiation after local rectal cancer recurrence but with a grade 3 toxicity in 6 patients (peripherical neuropathy and infection).
Pancreatic Cancer (Table 20.6)
Carbon ion therapy has been assessed as a neoadjuvant therapy in radiographically resectable pancreatic cancer92 within a phase I dose escalation study (30 to 36.8 GyE with eight fractions in 2 weeks). With a median follow-up time of 13.9 months (range, 3.2 to 73.1), there was no local failure in postoperative patients (21 of 25 patients); however, there was a high rate of metastases (68%). Two patients experienced a grade 3 to grade 4 toxicity unrelated to carbon ion radiotherapy.
NIRS also demonstrated the feasibility of carbon ion radiotherapy combined with gemcitabine in locally advanced pancreatic cancers, resulting in a low toxicity rate and a high local control and survival for the highest radiotherapy dose compared to historical data.93
Prostate Cancer (Table 20.7)
More than 1,300 patients have been treated with carbon ion beam for prostate cancer (primarily high and intermediate risk) at NIRS with two main fractionations (20 and 16 fractions).94–96 A new trial with 12 fractions in 3 weeks is ongoing. Preliminary results may indicate a higher disease-free survival, especially in high-risk patients, when compared with standard alternative therapies.97
TABLE 20.6 DIGESTIVE CANCERS (HEPATOCARCINOMA, RECURRENT RECTAL CANCER, PANCREATIC CANCER)
TABLE 20.7 PROSTATE CANCER
Miscellaneous
Several other tumors sites and pathology have been treated with carbon ions within phase I/II trials: locally advanced or unfavorably located choroidal melanoma,97 skin,98 esophagus,99 and cervix,100,101 which need continued investigation to confirm therapeutic efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
The accumulated clinical experience has indicated that certain types of tumors, such as advanced radioresistant head and neck tumors (ACC, adenocarcinoma, and mucosal malignant melanoma), large skull base tumors, rectal cancer (postoperative pelvic recurrence), and sarcomas, can only be appropriately controlled and cured by carbon ion therapy with high probability.44,46,53,65 It has been made clear that this therapy is capable of suppressing several types of tumors, such as peripheral-type non–small cell lung cancer, liver cancer, and prostate cancer, safely in a relatively short period of time through these clinical trials. Patients with such tumors can be remarkably healed by this therapy within a few days or weeks with minimal discomfort.
To date, no randomized clinical trial has shown the superiority of carbon ion beams to protons or photon radiotherapy. Therefore, in the future, not only evaluation of carbon ions alone in specific tumor types but also comparing to advanced photon techniques, such as IMRT, are required to exploit the full advantage of high LET particle therapy and to stratify patients for specific treatments.
REFERENCES
1. Wilson R. Radiological use of fast protons. Radiology 1946;47:487–491.
2. Castro JR, Linstadt DE, Bahary JP, et al. Experience in charged particle irradiation of tumors of the skull base: 1977–1992. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994;29:647–655.
3. Castro JR, Phillips TL, Prados M, et al. Neon heavy charged particle radiotherapy of glioblastoma of the brain. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;38:257–261.
4. Linstadt DE, Castro JR, Phillips TL. Neon ion radiotherapy: results of the phase I/II clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;20:761–769.
5. Schoenthaler R, Castro JR, Petti PL, et al. Charged particle irradiation of sacral chordomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993;26:291–298.
6. Schoenthaler R, Castro JR, Halberg FE, et al. Definitive postoperative irradiation of bile duct carcinoma with charged particles and/or photons. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993;27:75–82.
7. Sato K, Yamada S, Ogawa K, et al. Performance of HIMAC. Nucl Phys A 1995;588:229–234.
8. Tsujii H, Mizoe JE, Kamada T, et al. Overview of clinical experiences on carbon ion radiotherapy at NIRS. Radiother Oncol 2004;73(Suppl 2):S41–S49.
9. Elsasser T, Kramer M, Scholz M. Accuracy of the local effect model for the prediction of biologic effects of carbon ion beams in vitro and in vivo. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71:866–872.
10. Elsasser T, Weyrather WK, Friedrich T, et al. Quantification of the relative biological effectiveness for ion beam radiotherapy: direct experimental comparison of proton and carbon ion beams and a novel approach for treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;78:1177–1183.
11. Weyrather WK, Ritter S, Scholz M, et al. RBE for carbon track-segment irradiation in cell lines of differing repair capacity. Int J Radiat Biol 1999;75:1357–1364.
12. Combs SE, Ellerbrock M, Haberer T, et al. Heidelberg Ion Therapy Center (HIT): Initial clinical experience in the first 80 patients. Acta Oncol 2010;49:1132–1140.
13. Combs SE, Jakel O, Haberer T, et al. Particle therapy at the Heidelberg Ion Therapy Center (HIT)—integrated research-driven university-hospital-based radiation oncology service in Heidelberg, Germany. Radiother Oncol2010;95:41–44.
14. Rieken S, Habermehl D, Nikoghosyan A, et al. Assessment of early toxicity and response in patients treated with proton and carbon ion therapy at the Heidelberg Ion Therapy Center using the raster scanning technique. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81:e793–e801.
15. Combs SE, Kieser M, Rieken S, et al. Randomized phase II study evaluating a carbon ion boost applied after combined radiochemotherapy with temozolomide versus a proton boost after radiochemotherapy with temozolomide in patients with primary glioblastoma: the CLEOPATRA trial. BMC Cancer 2010;10:478.
16. Nikoghosyan AV, Rauch G, Munter MW, et al. Randomised trial of proton vs. carbon ion radiation therapy in patients with low and intermediate grade chondrosarcoma of the skull base, clinical phase III study. BMC Cancer2010;10:606.
17. Nikoghosyan AV, Karapanagiotou-Schenkel I, Munter MW, et al. Randomised trial of proton vs. carbon ion radiation therapy in patients with chordoma of the skull base, clinical phase III study HIT-1-Study. BMC Cancer2010;10:607.
18. Minohara S, Kanai T, Endo M, et al. Respiratory gated irradiation system for heavy-ion radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;47:1097–1103.
19. Noda K, Kanazawa M, Itano A, et al. Slow beam extraction by a transverse RF field with AM and FM. Nucl Instrum Meth A 1996;374:269–277.
20. Bert C, Gemmel A, Saito N, et al. Gated irradiation with scanned particle beams. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73:1270–1275.
21. Furukawa T, Inaniwa T, Sato S, et al. Moving target irradiation with fast rescanning and gating in particle therapy. Med Phys 2010;37:4874–4879.
22. Parodi K, Saito N, Chaudhri N, et al. 4D in-beam positron emission tomography for verification of motion-compensated ion beam therapy. Med Phys 2009; 36:4230–4243.
23. Schulz-Ertner D, Tsujii H. Particle radiation therapy using proton and heavier ion beams. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:953–964.
24. Suit H, DeLaney T, Goldberg S, et al. Proton vs carbon ion beams in the definitive radiation treatment of cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 2010;95:3–22.
25. Lee CT, Bilton SD, Famiglietti RM, et al. Treatment planning with protons for pediatric retinoblastoma, medulloblastoma, and pelvic sarcoma: how do protons compare with other conformal techniques? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:362–372.
26. Lin R, Hug EB, Schaefer RA, et al. Conformal proton radiation therapy of the posterior fossa: a study comparing protons with three-dimensional planned photons in limiting dose to auditory structures. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:1219–1226.
27. Miralbell R, Lomax A, Bortfeld T, et al. Potential role of proton therapy in the treatment of pediatric medulloblastoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumors: reduction of the supratentorial target volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;38:477–484.
28. St Clair WH, Adams JA, Bues M, et al. Advantage of protons compared to conventional x-ray or IMRT in the treatment of a pediatric patient with medulloblastoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2004;58:727–734.
29. Schulz-Ertner D, Nikoghosyan A, Didinger B, et al. Treatment planning intercomparison for spinal chordomas using intensity-modulated photon radiation therapy (IMRT) and carbon ions. Phys Med Biol2003;48:2617–2631.
30. Schulz-Ertner D, Didinger B, Nikoghosyan A, et al. Optimization of radiation therapy for locally advanced adenoid cystic carcinomas with infiltration of the skull base using photon intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and a carbon ion boost. Strahlenther Onkol 2003;179:345–351.
31. Amirul IM, Yanagi T, Mizoe JE, et al. Comparative study of dose distribution between carbon ion radiotherapy and photon radiotherapy for head and neck tumor. Radiat Med 2008;26:415–421.
32. Miralbell R, Lomax A, Cella L, et al. Potential reduction of the incidence of radiation-induced second cancers by using proton beams in the treatment of pediatric tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2002;54:824–829.
33. Kanai T, Endo M, Minohara S, et al. Biophysical characteristics of HIMAC clinical irradiation system for heavy-ion radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;44:201–210.
34. Kanai T, Matsufuji N, Miyamoto T, et al. Examination of GyE system for HIMAC carbon therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:650–656.
35. Ando K, Kase Y. Biological characteristics of carbon-ion therapy. Int J Radiat Biol 2009;85:715–728.
36. Suzuki M, Kase Y, Yamaguchi H, et al. Relative biological effectiveness for cell-killing effect on various human cell lines irradiated with heavy-ion medical accelerator in Chiba (HIMAC) carbon-ion beams. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:241–250.
37. Denekamp J, Waites T, Fowler JF. Predicting realistic RBE values for clinically relevant radiotherapy schedules. Int J Radiat Biol 1997;71:681–694.
38. Jensen AD, Munter MW, Debus J. Review of clinical experience with ion beam radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2011;84(Spec No 1):S35–S47.
39. Hasegawa A, Jingu K, Mizoe J, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for malignant head-and-neck tumors invading the skull base. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;78:S173.
40. Hasegawa A, Koto M, Takagi R, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for malignant head-and-neck tumors. Proceedings of NIRS-ETOILE 2nd Joint Symposium on Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, November 25–27, 2011, Centre ETOILE, Lyon, France.
41. Jensen AD, Nikoghosyan AV, Ecker S, et al. Carbon ion therapy for advanced sinonasal malignancies: feasibility and acute toxicity. Radiat Oncol 2011;6:30.
42. Jensen AD, Nikoghosyan A, Ellerbrock M, et al. Re-irradiation with scanned charged particle beams in recurrent tumours of the head and neck: acute toxicity and feasibility. Radiother Oncol2011;101:383–387.
43. Jensen AD, Nikoghosyan AV, Ecker S, et al. Raster-scanned carbon ion therapy for malignant salivary gland tumors: acute toxicity and initial treatment response. Radiat Oncol 2011;6:149.
44. Jingu K, Tsujii H, Mizoe JE, et al. Carbon ion radiation therapy improves the prognosis of unresectable adult bone and soft-tissue sarcoma of the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2012;82(5):2125–2131.
45. Jingu K, Kishimoto R, Mizoe JE, et al. Malignant mucosal melanoma treated with carbon ion radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy: prognostic value of pretreatment apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Radiother Oncol2011;98:68–73.
46. Mizoe JE, Tsujii H, Kamada T, et al. Dose escalation study of carbon ion radiotherapy for locally advanced head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;60:358–364.
47. Ramaekers BL, Pijls-Johannesma M, Joore MA, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of radiotherapy in various head and neck cancers: comparing photons, carbon-ions and protons. Cancer Treat Rev 2011;37:185–201.
48. Schulz-Ertner D, Nikoghosyan A, Didinger B, et al. Therapy strategies for locally advanced adenoid cystic carcinomas using modern radiation therapy techniques. Cancer 2005;104:338–344.
49. Thariat J, Bolle S, Demizu Y, et al. New techniques in radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: IMRT, CyberKnife, protons, and carbon ions. Improved effectiveness and safety? Impact on survival? Anticancer Drugs2011;22:596–606.
50. Hasegawa A, Koto M, Takagi R, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81:S77–S78.
51. Jensen AD, Nikoghosyan A, Windemuth-Kieselbach C, et al. Combined treatment of malignant salivary gland tumours with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and carbon ions: COSMIC. BMC Cancer 2010;10:546.
52. Jensen AD, Nikoghosyan A, Hinke A, et al. Combined treatment of adenoid cystic carcinoma with cetuximab and IMRT plus C12 heavy ion boost: ACCEPT [ACC, Erbitux(R) and particle therapy]. BMC Cancer 2011;11:70.
53. Kamada T, Tsujii H, Tsuji H, et al. Efficacy and safety of carbon ion radiotherapy in bone and soft tissue sarcomas. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4466–4471.
54. Imai R, Kamada T, Sugahara S, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for sacral chordoma. Br J Radiol 2011;84(Spec No 1):S48–S54.
55. Fuchs B, Dickey ID, Yaszemski MJ, et al. Operative management of sacral chordoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:2211–2216.
56. Park L, Delaney TF, Liebsch NJ, et al. Sacral chordomas: impact of high-dose proton/photon-beam radiation therapy combined with or without surgery for primary versus recurrent tumor. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2006;65:1514–1521.
57. Imai R, Kamada T, Tsuji H, et al. Effect of carbon ion radiotherapy for sacral chordoma: results of phase I-II and phase II clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;77:1470–1476.
58. Nishida Y, Kamada T, Imai R, et al. Clinical outcome of sacral chordoma with carbon ion radiotherapy compared with surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;79:110–116.
59. Takahashi M, Fukumoto T, Kusunoki N, et al. [Particle beam radiotherapy with a surgical spacer placement for unresectable sacral chordoma]. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 2010;37:2804–2806.
60. Serizawa I, Imai R, Kamada T, et al. Changes in tumor volume of sacral chordoma after carbon ion radiotherapy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009;33:795–798.
61. Ciernik IF, Niemierko A, Harmon DC, et al. Proton-based radiotherapy for unresectable or incompletely resected osteosarcoma. Cancer 2011;117:4522–4530.
62. Oertel S, Blattmann C, Rieken S, et al. Radiotherapy in the treatment of primary osteosarcoma—a single center experience. Tumori 2010;96:582–588.
63. Bielack SS, Wulff B, Delling G, et al. Osteosarcoma of the trunk treated by multimodal therapy: experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma study group (COSS). Med Pediatr Oncol 1995;24:6–12.
64. Bielack SS, Kempf-Bielack B, Delling G, et al. Prognostic factors in high-grade osteosarcoma of the extremities or trunk: an analysis of 1,702 patients treated on neoadjuvant cooperative osteosarcoma study group protocols. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:776–790.
65. Imai R, Kamada T, Tsuji H, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Proceedings of NIRS-ETOILE 2nd Joint Symposium on Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, November 25–27, 2011, Centre ETOILE, Lyon, France.
66. Blattmann C, Oertel S, Schulz-Ertner D, et al. Non-randomized therapy trial to determine the safety and efficacy of heavy ion radiotherapy in patients with non-resectable osteosarcoma. BMC Cancer2010;10:96.
67. Mizoe JE, Hasegawa A, Takagi R, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for skull base chordoma. Skull Base 2009;19:219–224.
68. Schulz-Ertner D, Nikoghosyan A, Hof H, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy of skull base chondrosarcomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:171–177.
69. Takahashi S, Kawase T, Yoshida K, et al. Skull base chordomas: efficacy of surgery followed by carbon ion radiotherapy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2009;151:759–769.
70. Combs SE, Nikoghosyan A, Jaekel O, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for pediatric patients and young adults treated for tumors of the skull base. Cancer 2009; 115:1348–1355.
71. Serizawa I, Kagei K, Kamada T, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for unresectable retroperitoneal sarcomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75:1105–1110.
72. Combs SE, Hartmann C, Nikoghosyan A, et al. Carbon ion radiation therapy for high-risk meningiomas. Radiother Oncol 2010;95:54–59.
73. Adeberg S, Hartmann C, Welzel T, et al. Long-term outcome after radiotherapy in patients with atypical and malignant meningiomas—clinical results in 85 patients treated in a single institution leading to optimized guidelines for early radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;83(3):859–864.
74. Koto M, Hasegawa A, Takagi R, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for skull base and paracervical tumors. Proceedings of NIRS-ETOILE 2nd Joint Symposium on Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, November 25–27, 2011, Centre ETOILE, Lyon, France.
75. Combs SE, Edler L, Burkholder I, et al. Treatment of patients with atypical meningiomas Simpson grade 4 and 5 with a carbon ion boost in combination with postoperative photon radiotherapy: the MARCIE trial. BMC Cancer2010;10:615.
76. Mizoe JE, Tsujii H, Hasegawa A, et al. Phase I/II clinical trial of carbon ion radiotherapy for malignant gliomas: combined x-ray radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and carbon ion radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2007;69:390–396.
77. Hasegawa A, Mizoe JE, Tsujii H, et al. Experience with carbon ion radiotherapy for WHO grade 2 diffuse astrocytomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;83(1):100–106.
78. Combs SE, Burkholder I, Edler L, et al. Randomised phase I/II study to evaluate carbon ion radiotherapy versus fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in patients with recurrent or progressive gliomas: the CINDERELLA trial. BMC Cancer 2010;10:533.
79. Combs SE, Kalbe A, Nikoghosyan A, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy performed as re-irradiation using active beam delivery in patients with tumors of the brain, skull base and sacral region. Radiother Oncol 2011;98:63–67.
80. Yamamoto N, Baba M, Nakajima M, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy in a hypofractionation regimen for stage I non small cell lung cancer. Proceedings of NIRS-ETOILE 2nd Joint Symposium on Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, November 25–27, 2011, Centre ETOILE, Lyon, France.
81. Koto M, Miyamoto T, Yamamoto N, et al. Local control and recurrence of stage I non-small cell lung cancer after carbon ion radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2004;71:147–156.
82. Miyamoto T, Yamamoto N, Nishimura H, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2003;66:127–140.
83. Miyamoto T, Baba M, Yamamoto N, et al. Curative treatment of stage I non-small-cell lung cancer with carbon ion beams using a hypofractionated regimen. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:750–758.
84. Miyamoto T, Baba M, Sugane T, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer using a regimen of four fractions during 1 week. J Thorac Oncol 2007;2:916–926.
85. Grutters JP, Kessels AG, Pijls-Johannesma M, et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of radiotherapy with photons, protons and carbon-ions for non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 2010;95:32–40.
86. Kato H, Tsujii H, Miyamoto T, et al. Results of the first prospective study of carbon ion radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with liver cirrhosis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;59:1468–1476.
87. Imada H, Yasuda S, Yamada S, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for liver cancer. Proceedings of NIRS-ETOILE 2nd Joint Symposium on Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, November 25–27, 2011, Centre ETOILE, Lyon, France.
88. Imada H, Kato H, Yasuda S, et al. Comparison of efficacy and toxicity of short-course carbon ion radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma depending on their proximity to the porta hepatis. Radiother Oncol 2010;96:231–235.
89. Imada H, Kato H, Yasuda S, et al. Compensatory enlargement of the liver after treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with carbon ion radiotherapy—relation to prognosis and liver function. Radiother Oncol 2010;96:236–242.
90. Combs SE, Habermehl D, Ganten T, et al. Phase I study evaluating the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with carbon ion radiotherapy: the PROMETHEUS-01 trial. BMC Cancer2011;11:67.
91. Yamada S, Shinoto M, Endo S, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer. Proceedings of NIRS-ETOILE 2nd Joint Symposium on Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, November 25–27, 2011, Centre ETOILE, Lyon, France.
92. Shinoto M, Yamada S, Yasuda S, et al. Efficacy and safety of short course carbon-ion radiotherapy for patients with preoperative pancreatic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81:S331.
93. Shinoto M, Yamada S, Yasuda S, et al. Carbon ion for pancreatic cancer. Proceedings of NIRS-ETOILE 2nd Joint Symposium on Carbon Ion Radiotherapy November 25–27, 2011, Centre ETOILE, Lyon, France.
94. Ishikawa H, Tsuji H, Kamada T, et al. Carbon ion radiation therapy for prostate cancer: results of a prospective phase II study. Radiother Oncol 2006;81:57–64.
95. Shimazaki J, Tsuji H, Ishikawa H, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer and subsequent outcomes after biochemical failure. Anticancer Res 2010;30:5105–5111.
96. Tsuji H, Yanagi T, Ishikawa H, et al. Hypofractionated radiotherapy with carbon ion beams for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:1153–1160.
97. Tsuji H, Mizoguchi N, Toyama S, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Proceedings of NIRS-ETOILE 2nd Joint Symposium on Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, November 25–27, 2011, Centre ETOILE, Lyon, France.
98. Zhang H, Li S, Wang XH, et al. Results of carbon ion radiotherapy for skin carcinomas in 45 patients. Br J Dermatol 2012;166(5):1100–1106.
99. Akutsu Y, Yasuda S, Nagata M, et al. A phase I/II clinical trial of preoperative short-course carbon-ion radiotherapy for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. J Surg Oncol2012;105(8):750–755.
100. Kato S, Ohno T, Tsujii H, et al. Dose escalation study of carbon ion radiotherapy for locally advanced carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65:388–397.
101. Suzuki Y, Oka K, Ohno T, et al. Prognostic impact of mitotic index of proliferating cell populations in cervical cancer patients treated with carbon ion beam. Cancer 2009;115:1875–1882.