From: Charged particle therapy for high-grade gliomas in adults: a systematic review
Studies | Country | Study design | Time range | Surgery | Radiation modality | Chemotherapy | No. of patients | Median Follow-up(mo) | Charged particle technique summary | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GRS | SUB | BIO | |||||||||
Tsujii et al. [13] | Japan (TSU) | Prospective | 1983–1990 | – | – | – | Proton ± Photon | No | 13 | – | NG |
Fitzek et al. [15] | USA (MGH) | Prospective | 1992–1996 | 9 | 13 | 1 | Proton + Photon | NG | 23 | 33 | NG |
Mizoe et al. [27] | Japan (NIRS) | Prospective | 1994–2002 | 8 | 8 | 32 | Photon + Carbon ion | ACNU | 48 | 23 | NG |
Mizoe et al. [27] | Japan (TSU) | Prospective | 2001–2009 | 0 | 15 | 8 | Proton + Photon | TMZ or ACNU | 23 | – | Double-scattering proton therapy |
Adeberg et al. [14] | Germany (HIT) | Retrospective | 2011–2015 | – | – | 13[10]b | Proton + Photon | TMZa | 132 | 15 | Proton beam: active raster-scan system |
Vora et al. [11] | USA (Multi-institution) | Prospective | 2009–2017 | 34 | 18 | 11 | Proton alone | TMZa | 63 | 15 | NG |
Kong et al. [25] | China (SPHIC) | Prospective | 2015–2018 | 17 | 22 | 11 | Proton + Carbon ion | TMZa | 50 | 14.3 | PRT/CIRT: 2–3 beams; Pencil-beam scanning system |
Brown et al. [12] | USA (UT MDA) | Prospective | 2013–2016 | 19(20)b | 5[17] | 2(4) | Proton vs. IMRT | TMZa | 67 | 48.7 | IMPT: Multi-or single-field optimization; Passive or active-scatter technique |