Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum State Preparation Representation
Acute toxicity and patient-reported symptom score after conventional versus moderately hypofractionated proton therapy for prostate cancer.
PubMed
Authors: Iizumi T, Ishikawa H, Sekino Y, Tanaka K, Takizawa D, Makishima H, Numajiri H, Mizumoto M, Nakai K, Okumura T, Sakurai H
Year
2022
Paper ID
945
Status
Peer-reviewed
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
132
Citations
N/A
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To confirm the feasibility of hypofractionated proton beam therapy (PBT), we compared the acute adverse event rates and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) in prostate cancer patients treated with hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated (2.0 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE)/fraction) PBT. METHODS: We reviewed 289 patients with prostate cancer, of whom 73, 100, and 116 patients were treated with 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 Gy (RBE)/fraction, respectively. The endpoints were acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities and the IPSS, evaluated up to 6 months after PBT initiation. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in acute toxicity rates or the IPSS among the fractionation schedules. Diabetes mellitus, age, and androgen deprivation therapy were not identified as factors associated with the IPSS. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in adverse events or quality of life among the three fractionation schedules early after PBT.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum State Preparation & Representation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2022 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- INTRODUCTION: To confirm the feasibility of hypofractionated proton beam therapy (PBT), we compared the acute adverse event rates and International Prostate Symptom Score...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.