000180375 001__ 180375
000180375 005__ 20240229145616.0
000180375 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1016/j.radonc.2022.06.006
000180375 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:35714806
000180375 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0167-8140
000180375 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1879-0887
000180375 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:129713996
000180375 037__ $$aDKFZ-2022-01289
000180375 041__ $$aEnglish
000180375 082__ $$a610
000180375 1001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aEichkorn, T$$b0
000180375 245__ $$aResults of a prospective randomized trial on long-term effectiveness of protons and carbon ions in prostate cancer: LEM I and α/β=2Gy overestimates the RBE.
000180375 260__ $$aAmsterdam [u.a.]$$bElsevier Science$$c2022
000180375 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000180375 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000180375 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1657014936_11542
000180375 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000180375 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000180375 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000180375 500__ $$a2022 Jun 14;173:223-230
000180375 520__ $$aTo analyze the long-term effectiveness of carbon ions relative to protons in the prospective randomized controlled ion prostate irradiation (IPI) trial.Effectiveness via PSA assessment in a randomized study on prostate irradiation with 20x3.3Gy(RBE) protons versus carbon ions was analyzed in 92 patients. Proton RBE was based on a fixed RBE of 1.1 while the local effect model (LEM) I and an α/β=2Gy was used for carbon ions. The dose in the prostate was recalculated based on the delivered treatment plan using LEM I and LEM IV and different α/β values.Five-year overall and progression free survival was 98% and 85% with protons and 91% and 50% with carbon ions, respectively, with the latter being unexpectedly low compared to Japanese carbon ion data and rather corresponding to a photon dose <72 Gy in 2 Gy fractions. According to LEM I and the applied α/β-value of 2Gy, the applied carbon ion dose in 2 Gy(RBE) fractions (EQD2) was 87.46 Gy(RBE). Recalculations confirmed a strong dependence of RBE-weighted dose on the α/β ratio as well as on the RBE-model.The data demonstrate a significant lower effectiveness of the calculated RBE-weighted dose in the carbon ion as compared to the proton arm. LEM I and an α/β = 2 Gy overestimates the RBE for carbon ions in prostate cancer treatment. Adjusting the biological dose calculation by using LEM I with α/β=4 Gy could be a pragmatic way to safely escalate dose in carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
000180375 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315$$a315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)$$cPOF4-315$$fPOF IV$$x0
000180375 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: inrepo02.dkfz.de
000180375 650_7 $$2Other$$aCarbon ion and proton radiotherapy
000180375 650_7 $$2Other$$aLocal effect model (LEM)
000180375 650_7 $$2Other$$aProstate cancer
000180375 650_7 $$2Other$$aRelative biological effectiveness (RBE)
000180375 650_7 $$2Other$$aα/β ratio
000180375 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)b43076fb0a30230e4323887c0c980046$$aKarger, Christian$$b1$$udkfz
000180375 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aBrons, S$$b2
000180375 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aKoerber, Stefan A$$b3
000180375 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aMielke, Thomas$$b4
000180375 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aHaberer, Thomas$$b5
000180375 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)8714da4e45acfa36ce87c291443a9218$$aDebus, Jürgen$$b6$$udkfz
000180375 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)ea5c703d5f5cf5f1c26a34b38a5056dc$$aHerfarth, Klaus$$b7
000180375 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)1500707-8$$a10.1016/j.radonc.2022.06.006$$gp. S0167814022041627$$p223-230$$tRadiotherapy and oncology$$v173$$x0167-8140$$y2022
000180375 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:180375$$pVDB
000180375 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)b43076fb0a30230e4323887c0c980046$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b1$$kDKFZ
000180375 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)8714da4e45acfa36ce87c291443a9218$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b6$$kDKFZ
000180375 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF4-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF4$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vBildgebung und Radioonkologie$$x0
000180375 9141_ $$y2022
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0160$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEssential Science Indicators$$d2021-01-31
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1190$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBiological Abstracts$$d2021-01-31
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0113$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded$$d2021-01-31
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0420$$2StatID$$aNationallizenz$$d2022-11-29$$wger
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline$$d2022-11-29
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List$$d2022-11-29
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection$$d2022-11-29
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews$$d2022-11-29
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine$$d2022-11-29
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bRADIOTHER ONCOL : 2021$$d2022-11-29
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS$$d2022-11-29
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search$$d2022-11-29
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC$$d2022-11-29
000180375 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9905$$2StatID$$aIF >= 5$$bRADIOTHER ONCOL : 2021$$d2022-11-29
000180375 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331$$kE040$$lE040 Med. Physik in der Strahlentherapie$$x0
000180375 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)E050-20160331$$kE050$$lE050 KKE Strahlentherapie$$x1
000180375 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331$$kHD01$$lDKTK HD zentral$$x2
000180375 980__ $$ajournal
000180375 980__ $$aVDB
000180375 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
000180375 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)E050-20160331
000180375 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331
000180375 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED