Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Proton Beam Therapy for Local Recurrence of Rectal Cancer

YUICHI HIROSHIMA, HITOSHI ISHIKAWA, MOTOHIRO MURAKAMI, MASATOSHI NAKAMURA, SHOSEI SHIMIZU, TSUYOSHI ENOMOTO, TATSUYA ODA, MASASHI MIZUMOTO, KEI NAKAI, TOSHIYUKI OKUMURA and HIDEYUKI SAKURAI
Anticancer Research July 2021, 41 (7) 3589-3595; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15147
YUICHI HIROSHIMA
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Proton Medical Research Center, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: hiroshima@pmrc.tsukuba.ac.jp
HITOSHI ISHIKAWA
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Proton Medical Research Center, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan;
2QST hospital, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MOTOHIRO MURAKAMI
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Proton Medical Research Center, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MASATOSHI NAKAMURA
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Proton Medical Research Center, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SHOSEI SHIMIZU
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Proton Medical Research Center, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TSUYOSHI ENOMOTO
3Department of GI & HBP Surgery, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TATSUYA ODA
3Department of GI & HBP Surgery, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MASASHI MIZUMOTO
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Proton Medical Research Center, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KEI NAKAI
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Proton Medical Research Center, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TOSHIYUKI OKUMURA
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Proton Medical Research Center, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIDEYUKI SAKURAI
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Proton Medical Research Center, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Curing local recurrence of rectal cancer (LRRC) is difficult with conventional photon radiotherapy. Proton beam therapy (PBT) on the other hand, has unique physical characteristics that permit higher doses to LRRC while minimizing side effects on surrounding organs. However, the efficacy of PBT on controlling rectal cancer recurrence has not yet been reported. This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes and toxicities of PBT for LRRC. Patients and Methods: Clinical outcomes were retrospectively evaluated for 12 patients with 13 total lesions that had received PBT for LRRC at our institute. Results: The median follow-up period from the initiation of PBT was 42.9 months. The 3-year local control, progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 80.2%, 12.1% and 71.3%, respectively. Median survival time was 67.1 months. There were no severe acute or late adverse events. Conclusion: PBT could be a safe and effective treatment method for LRRC.

Key Words:
  • Rectal cancer
  • local recurrence
  • proton beam therapy
  • dose escalation
  • chemoradiotherapy
  • particle beam therapy

In Japan, colorectal cancer was the most common malignancy in 2017 and the second-leading cause of death in 2018 (1). Rectal cancer accounted for about one-third of these, with 51,238 patients in 2017 and 15,244 deaths in 2018 (1). Advances in surgical techniques have decreased the frequency of postoperative local recurrence (LR); however, LR persists in 5-1% of patients even after curative resection of rectal cancer (2). Surgery, especially complete surgical resection (R0 resection), is the only curative treatment for LR of rectal cancer (LRRC) but there are severe complications during and after resection, meaning that few patients with LRRC can undergo R0 resection (3-5). In Japan, surgery for resection is recommended for LRRC only when R0 resection is possible (6).

Some LRRC patients who do not qualify for surgical resection therefore receive radiotherapy, especially for symptoms like bleeding and pain. However, conventional photon radiotherapy at 50.0 Gray (Gy) and 25 fractions is palliative, not curative, as LRRC has very low radiosensitivity (7). In these cases, dose escalation may improve clinical outcomes but close proximity of these tumors to radiosensitive organs like the colon, bladder and small intestine prevent this approach for conventional photon radiotherapy (8).

Proton beam therapy (PBT), on the other hand, has unique physical characteristics, such as the Bragg-Peak, in which the proton beam creates a localized peak in a deep part of the body according to the input energy. Because of this feature, PBT can provide higher doses to LRRC, while minimizing unnecessary irradiation of the surrounding, radiosensitive organs. In recent decades, the efficacy and feasibility of PBT has been reported for diverse cancers such as the liver, esophagus, or pancreas (9-15).

We treated 12 patients with curative PBT in our institute and we report here the results demonstrating the potential effectiveness of PBT for patients with LRRC.

Patients and Methods

Patients. PBT for LRRC was conducted for 12 patients with 13 total lesions between 2003 and 2018 at our institute. Before beginning treatment, LRRC without distant metastasis was verified by computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and F-18-2-Fluoro-2-deoxy-D- glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET). After curative resection of the primary tumor and regional lymph nodes, rectal adenocarcinoma without gross or microscopic residual disease was confirmed. After the examinations were completed, all cases in which complete resection was difficult were evaluated by surgeons on the cancer board.

As exclusion criteria, patients with an ECOG Performance Status (PS) >2, who had received prior photon or particle radiation therapy to the same site, who had another primary malignancy, or who had an infection at the tumor site were not included in this study.

Proton beam therapy. Before making a treatment plan, CT images without intravenous contrast agent were taken at 2.5 mm intervals for planning. We defined the gross tumor volume as the primary tumor while the clinical target volume (CTV) was judged to be an additional 5 mm margin around the gross tumor volume. Beam-dependent margins, such as a 0.5-1 cm margin around the CTV, were directly added.

Irradiation was performed daily during weekdays and at least 4 days a week, even on holidays. During treatment, all patients were treated with 155-230 MeV proton beams, using a passive spreading method, shaped with ridge filters, double scattering sheets, multi-collimators and a custom-made bolus to ensure that the beams conformed to the planning data. Spinal bones and 2 sets of orthogonal digital radiographs were used for daily positional confirmation.

We selected beam fractionations by tumor location, distance between tumors and organs at risk. When the tumors were in the vicinity of high-risk organs, fractional doses were reduced to avoid severe adverse effects. Irradiated doses were calculated by assuming the RBE to be 1.1. Figure 1 depicts a representative case of a LRRC patient and dose distribution of PBT at a total dose of 75 GyE in 25 fractions.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Dose distribution of proton beam therapy for sacral anterior LRRC at a total dose of 75 GyE in 25 fractions. The supine position resulted in the gantry being closer to the lesion and further improved the dose distribution.

Concurrent chemotherapy. Six of 13 patients in this analysis received concurrent S-1 (combination of Tegafur, Gimeracil and Oteracil). Oral S-1 was prescribed twice daily, but only on the day of irradiation, according to body-surface area (<1.25 m2, 80 mg/day; >1.25 to <1.5 m2, 100 mg/day; >1.5 m2, 120 mg/day), and was skipped when the absolute granulocyte count was less than 2,000/mm3 or the platelet count was less than 70,000/mm3 on a scheduled dosage day, in cases of poor performance status, abnormal biochemical data, or in the presence of any diagnosed condition that contraindicated administration.

Others were treated solely by PBT if S-1 or fluorouracil was ineffective in a previous treatment cycle or the gastrointestinal tract was in close proximity.

Follow-up procedure. During PBT treatment, acute treatment-related toxicities and treatment efficacies were evaluated once or twice per week in all patients. All patients were scheduled for examination every 3 months and physical condition, blood sampling and imaging were conducted prior to their visits if their physical condition was good after completing PBT. If the patients were unable to visit our institute due to the traveling distance or a poor general condition, follow up of imaging and blood tests was performed at a nearby institute and the results were sent to our hospital. Adjuvant therapy after PBT was done at the discretion of the attending physician in accordance with individual physical condition.

Evaluation and stastical analysis. Acute and late toxicities were evaluated according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, version 4.0) (16) while relapse was evaluated according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1) (17). We examined overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and local control (LC) rates using the Kaplan–Meier method. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 25.0 (IBM Inc. Armonk, NY, USA).

Ethics. All procedures involving human participants, including case reviews of treatments, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments and approved by the University of Tsukuba Institutional Research Committee (Approval #R01-230). All treatments were discussed at an in-hospital conference consisting of surgeons, internists and radiologists; informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study. We got informed consent from either living patients themselves or legally designated next-of-kin where appropriate.

Results

Patient characteristics. From 2001 to 2018, 12 patients with 13 total LRRC lesions were included. Six of 13 patients in this analysis were treated by curative chemotherapy concurrent with PBT while the remaining 7 received only PBT and all patients completed their scheduled treatments. Patient characteristics are summarized in Table I. The median age was 69 years (range=38-77 years) and all patients were male. Relapse locations included the presacral region (n=12) and pelvic side walls (n=1). The median tumor size was 63 mm (range=20-131 mm). The median time from surgery to LR was 23.5 months (range=2.1-89.3 months). Total irradiated doses and fractionations are summarized in Table II.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Characteristics of patients and tumors.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Characteristics of treatment plans.

Treatment outcomes. The median follow-up period from the initiation of PBT was 42.9 months (range=3.6-102.6 months). As of November 2020, a total of 6 patients had died of rectal cancer. Recurrence after PBT was observed in 10 patients (83.3%), of whom 2 (16.7%) had a LR, 7 (58.3%) had distant metastasis and 1 (8.3%) had both. The 3-year LC, PFS and OS rates were 80.2% [95% confidence interval (CI)=55.1-100%], 12.1% (95% CI=0-33.7%) and 71.3% (95% CI=43.7-98.9%), respectively. Median survival time was 67.1 months (95% CI=24.0-110.2 months) (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of (a) overall survival (OS) and (b) local control (LC) rates from the initiation of proton beam therapy.

Toxicities. Treatment-related toxicities are described in Table III. No grade >2 acute or late adverse events were observed over the follow-up time period.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Treatment-related acute and late adverse events.

Discussion

In our study, the 3-year OS and LC rates were 71.3% and 80.2%. Although from a small population, these results were encouraging since the enrolled patients were not suitable for radical resection.

Westberg et al. showed some factors that influence death risk after curative treatment for LRRC from a large population-based national patient cohort with long follow up (18). They reported that patients aged 80 years and over, with stage III primary tumors, symptoms, hydronephrosis, or a non-central LRRC were at a significant high risk with regards to curative surgery. In our study, 8 of 12 patients were at a primary tumor stage of more than III and this fact suggests that particle beam therapy may be safe and effective in some of these cases.

It could be hard to achieve R0 resection in LRRC that have infiltrated the pelvic side or posterior wall as centrally located LRRC, because they tend to invade organs at risk such as the gastrointestinal tract and bladder. As a result, centrally located LRRC with a good indication for surgery tends to not be recommended for PBT in order to limit dose escalation around organs at risk. On the other hand, since a non-centrally located LRRC tends to be distant from organs at risk, this may be a good indication for PBT when taking into account the risks of mortality and morbidity following curative surgery. In our study, although 11 of 13 lesions were located centrally, there were no serious acute or late adverse events. We tried to administer treatment plans that had been redesigned several times to deliver the highest possible dose to the LRRC while suppressing exposure to at-risk organs, thereby helping to alleviate severe adverse events.

Photon radiotherapy is sometimes suggested for patients who are not suitable for surgical resection, but radiosensitive organs around the tumor make sufficient curative doses difficult even with high-precision radiotherapy techniques such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Tanaka et al. reported that 3-year OS and LC rates with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy were 45.2% and 19.6% and found that doses higher than the biological effective dose (BED) of 75Gy brought better clinical outcomes (7). However, this exceeds the tolerable dose for risk organs, such as the gastrointestinal tract, and would increase the frequency of serious adverse events like perforation. Although achieving therapeutically sufficient doses is sometimes difficult for photon radiotherapy, particle beam therapy may more easily achieve clinical goals due to the Bragg Peak effect. In fact, no serious adverse effects were observed in all 10 patients given at > BED of 75 Gy in our study.

Proton beam therapy for LRRC has been reported in a small number of cases; Lee et al. performed PBT on 4 of 67 LRRC patients (19). Although there are no reports on the results of PBT, they noted that they were able to prescribe high doses for patients with very close to organs at risk, such as small bowel. Hamauchi et al. reported the results of PBT in 13 LRRC patients with 70 GyE (20). With median LC and PFS of 504 and 404 days, respectively, and only one patient with a Grade 3 adverse event, they suggested that PBT may be a treatment option for LRRC due to good local control and low incidence of serious adverse events. Berman et al. reported the outcomes of PBT in 7 LRRC patients with prior irradiation and the dose distribution compared to IMRT (21). The average prescribed dose of PBT was 61.2 GyE, with complete response and progressive disease in 1 patient each and partial response in 7 patients. In terms of dose distribution, PBT was significantly better than IMRT, especially in avoiding the small intestine. All these reports with PBT are consistent with the present report, as they safely delivered high doses to the LRRC while lowering the dose delivered to the gastrointestinal tract.

There are some reports of carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) for LRRC. CIRT is a particle beam therapy and is characterized by high BED (22). Yamada et al. reported a phase 1/2 dose escalation study (23) where the 3-year and 5-year OS rates were 72% and 53%. In phase I, they demonstrated that 73.6 Gy (RBE: Relative Biological Effect weighted absorbed dose) in 16 fractions was better and carried this over to a phase 2 study. Shinoto et al. reported a multi-institutional study of CIRT on LRRC in which three CIRT institutions in Japan were included (24). From a total number of 224 patients, they reported 3-year and 5-year OS of rates 73% and 51%. They also reported that grade 3 acute toxicities were observed in 3 (1%) of the 224 patients (1 gastrointestinal reaction and 2 pelvic abscesses) while grade 3 late toxicities were observed in 12 patients (5%) (2 skin reactions, 2 gastrointestinal reactions, 1 peripheral nerve reaction and 7 pelvic abscesses). Most patients received 73.6 Gy (RBE) in 16 fractions and, as their results were very similar to the study by Yamada et al., these reports point to better clinical outcomes and lower toxicity than conventional photon radiotherapy.

With regard to biological effects, PBT is similar to photon beam therapy (25) in that more dose escalation may result in better clinical outcomes, as seen in CIRT studies; however, even PBT may face positioning difficulties between tumor and gastrointestinal tract locations. To improve clinical outcomes, local hyperthermia is an option as it is known to heat tumors, increasing the blood supply and improving delivery of large doses of oxygen and drugs to tumors and enhancing the effects of radiotherapy (26, 27). It also has a function as a radiation- and chemo-sensitizer while inhibiting transcription factors (28). Because LRRC is characterized by chemo-and radio- resistance and hypoxia, these patients are presumably well adapted for combination of hyperthermic therapy with lower linear energy transfer radiation such as PBT (29). Thus, we have recently started concomitant use of hyperthermia in PBT for LRRC to improve outcomes. Due to the short accumulation period and the small number of patients, reports from our institute on this promising effect remain forthcoming.

Another solution to improve clinical outcomes is a surgical spacer. The method of using a tissue expander for the spacer has been reported for a long time, but these need to be removed after irradiation. Kemmochi et al. reported on experiences of surgical spacer placement using polytetrafluoroethylene and polyurethane (30), pointing out that artificial objects adhere to the digestive tract and damage it due to friction after a long insertion period. Akasaka et al. reported on the efficacy and safety of making distance between the tumor and the at-risk organ by using a nonwoven spacer produced with a biocompatible, synthetic polymeric material called polyglycolic acid (PGA) (31). The characteristic of these spacers is that the size does not change for 8 weeks and is gradually absorbed from about 12 weeks with no toxicity, including no C-reactive protein (CRP) elevation and no liver or renal dysfunction. Since 2019, this spacer can be used for particle beam therapy within the national insurance system of Japan and it is expected that spacer-enabled higher doses can be administered, thereby increasing the number of treatable LRRC patients.

There are some limitations to this study, including the retrospective design, small patient population and possible selection bias. Additionally, we did not compare PBT with photon radiotherapy and CIRT directly; therefore, it is unclear how much better PBT actually is. However, we found good local control and overall survival without severe adverse effects by using PBT for LRRC. These results suggest that PBT could be an effective and safe definitive therapy for LRRC.

Conclusion

Our result showed that PBT for LRRC resulted in longer survival and better local control than previously reported photon radiotherapy without any severe adverse events. Therefore, PBT could be a safe and effective treatment method for LRRC.

Acknowledgements

The Authors would like to thank Dr. Bryan J. Mathis of the University of Tsukuba Medical English Communications Center for language revision. This work was partially supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (19H03596) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.

Footnotes

  • This article is freely accessible online.

  • Authors’ Contributions

    Conceptualization, Y.H. and H.S.; methodology, Y.H.; formal analysis, M.M. (Motohiro Murakami); investigation, Y.H. and H.I.; resources, M.N.; data curation, S.S.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.H.; writing – review and editing, H.I. and M.M. (Masashi Mizumoto); visualization, K.N.; supervision, T.O. (Toshiyuki Okumura) and T.E.; project administration, H.S. and T.O. (Tatsuya Oda). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors declare no conflicts of interest.

  • Received February 4, 2021.
  • Revision received May 24, 2021.
  • Accepted May 26, 2021.
  • Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    Cancer registry and statistics. Cancer information service, national cancer center, Japan (ministry of health, labour and welfare, national cancer registry), 2020. Available at: https://ganjoho.jp/reg_stat/statistics/dl/index.html [Last accessed on May 26, 2021]
  2. ↵
    1. van Gijn W,
    2. Marijnen CA,
    3. Nagtegaal ID,
    4. Kranenbarg EM,
    5. Putter H,
    6. Wiggers T,
    7. Rutten HJ,
    8. Påhlman L,
    9. Glimelius B,
    10. van de Velde CJ and Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group
    : Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer: 12-year follow-up of the multicentre, randomised controlled TME trial. Lancet Oncol 12(6): 575-582, 2011. PMID: 21596621. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70097-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Nielsen MB,
    2. Rasmussen PC,
    3. Lindegaard JC and
    4. Laurberg S
    : A 10-year experience of total pelvic exenteration for primary advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer based on a prospective database. Colorectal Dis 14(9): 1076-1083, 2012. PMID: 22107085. DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02893.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Nielsen M,
    2. Rasmussen P,
    3. Pedersen B,
    4. Hagemann-Madsen R,
    5. Lindegaard J and
    6. Laurberg S
    : Early and late outcomes of surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer: a prospective 10-year study in the total mesorectal excision era. Ann Surg Oncol 22(8): 2677-684, 2015. PMID: 25564165. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-4317-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Bhangu A,
    2. Ali SM,
    3. Darzi A,
    4. Brown G and
    5. Tekkis P
    : Meta-analysis of survival based on resection margin status following surgery for recurrent rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 14(12): 1457-466, 2012. PMID: 22356246. DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03005.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Hashiguchi Y,
    2. Muro K,
    3. Saito Y,
    4. Ito Y,
    5. Ajioka Y,
    6. Hamaguchi T,
    7. Hasegawa K,
    8. Hotta K,
    9. Ishida H,
    10. Ishiguro M,
    11. Ishihara S,
    12. Kanemitsu Y,
    13. Kinugasa Y,
    14. Murofushi K,
    15. Nakajima TE,
    16. Oka S,
    17. Tanaka T,
    18. Taniguchi H,
    19. Tsuji A,
    20. Uehara K,
    21. Ueno H,
    22. Yamanaka T,
    23. Yamazaki K,
    24. Yoshida M,
    25. Yoshino T,
    26. Itabashi M,
    27. Sakamaki K,
    28. Sano K,
    29. Shimada Y,
    30. Tanaka S,
    31. Uetake H,
    32. Yamaguchi S,
    33. Yamaguchi N,
    34. Kobayashi H,
    35. Matsuda K,
    36. Kotake K,
    37. Sugihara K and Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum
    : Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2019 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 25(1): 1-42, 2020. PMID: 31203527. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-019-01485-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Tanaka H,
    2. Yamaguchi T,
    3. Hachiya K,
    4. Okada S,
    5. Kitahara M,
    6. Matsuyama K and
    7. Matsuo M
    : Radiotherapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer treated with surgery alone as the initial treatment. Radiat Oncol J 35(1): 71-77, 2017. PMID: 28395503. DOI: 10.3857/roj.2016.02005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Höckel M,
    2. Schlenger K,
    3. Höckel S,
    4. Aral B,
    5. Schäffer U and
    6. Vaupel P
    : Tumor hypoxia in pelvic recurrences of cervical cancer. Int J Cancer 79(4): 365-369, 1998. PMID: 9699528. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19980821)79:4<365::aid-ijc10>3.0.co;2-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Tamura S,
    2. Okamura Y,
    3. Sugiura T,
    4. Ito T,
    5. Yamamoto Y,
    6. Ashida R,
    7. Ohgi K,
    8. Murayama S and
    9. Uesaka K
    : A comparison of the outcomes between surgical resection and proton beam therapy for single primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg Today 50(4): 369-378, 2020. PMID: 31602531. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-019-1888-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lin SH,
    2. Hobbs BP,
    3. Verma V,
    4. Tidwell RS,
    5. Smith GL,
    6. Lei X,
    7. Corsini EM,
    8. Mok I,
    9. Wei X,
    10. Yao L,
    11. Wang X,
    12. Komaki RU,
    13. Chang JY,
    14. Chun SG,
    15. Jeter MD,
    16. Swisher SG,
    17. Ajani JA,
    18. Blum-Murphy M,
    19. Vaporciyan AA,
    20. Mehran RJ,
    21. Koong AC,
    22. Gandhi SJ,
    23. Hofstetter WL,
    24. Hong TS,
    25. Delaney TF,
    26. Liao Z and
    27. Mohan R
    : Randomized phase IIB trial of proton beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol 38(14): 1569-1579, 2020. PMID: 32160096. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.19.02503
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Anakotta RM,
    2. van der Laan HP,
    3. Visser S,
    4. Ribeiro CO,
    5. Dieters M,
    6. Langendijk JA,
    7. Both S,
    8. Korevaar EW,
    9. Sijtsema NM,
    10. Knopf A and
    11. Muijs CT
    : Weekly robustness evaluation of intensity-modulated proton therapy for oesophageal cancer. Radiother Oncol 151: 66-72, 2020. PMID: 32663538. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.07.015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hiroshima Y,
    2. Fukumitsu N,
    3. Saito T,
    4. Numajiri H,
    5. Murofushi KN,
    6. Ohnishi K,
    7. Nonaka T,
    8. Ishikawa H,
    9. Okumura T and
    10. Sakurai H
    : Concurrent chemoradiotherapy using proton beams for unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Radiother Oncol 136: 37-43, 2019. PMID: 31015127. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.03.012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Igaki H,
    2. Mizumoto M,
    3. Okumura T,
    4. Hasegawa K,
    5. Kokudo N and
    6. Sakurai H
    : A systematic review of publications on charged particle therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol 23(3): 423-433, 2018. PMID: 28871342. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-17-1190-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ishikawa H,
    2. Hashimoto T,
    3. Moriwaki T,
    4. Hyodo I,
    5. Hisakura K,
    6. Terashima H,
    7. Ohkohchi N,
    8. Ohno T,
    9. Makishima H,
    10. Mizumoto M,
    11. Ohnishi K,
    12. Okumura T and
    13. Sakurai H
    : Proton beam therapy combined with concurrent chemotherapy for esophageal cancer. Anticancer Res 35(3): 1757-1762, 2015. PMID: 25750339.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Terashima K,
    2. Demizu Y,
    3. Hashimoto N,
    4. Jin D,
    5. Mima M,
    6. Fujii O,
    7. Niwa Y,
    8. Takatori K,
    9. Kitajima N,
    10. Sirakawa S,
    11. Yonson K,
    12. Hishikawa Y,
    13. Abe M,
    14. Sasaki R,
    15. Sugimura K and
    16. Murakami M
    : A phase I/II study of gemcitabine-concurrent proton radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer without distant metastasis. Radiother Oncol 103(1): 25-31, 2012. PMID: 22300608. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.12.029
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services
    : Common terminology criteria for adverse events (ctcae) version 4.0. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 2009. Available at: https://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03/Archive/CTCAE_4.0_2009-05-29_QuickReference_8.5x11.pdf [Last accessed on May 26, 2021]
  11. ↵
    1. Eisenhauer EA,
    2. Therasse P,
    3. Bogaerts J,
    4. Schwartz LH,
    5. Sargent D,
    6. Ford R,
    7. Dancey J,
    8. Arbuck S,
    9. Gwyther S,
    10. Mooney M,
    11. Rubinstein L,
    12. Shankar L,
    13. Dodd L,
    14. Kaplan R,
    15. Lacombe D and
    16. Verweij J
    : New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2): 228-247, 2009. PMID: 19097774. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Westberg K,
    2. Palmer G,
    3. Hjern F,
    4. Nordenvall C,
    5. Johansson H,
    6. Holm T and
    7. Martling A
    : Population-based study of factors predicting treatment intention in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer. Br J Surg 104(13): 1866-1873, 2017. PMID: 29023631. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10645
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Lee JH,
    2. Kim DY,
    3. Kim SY,
    4. Park JW,
    5. Choi HS,
    6. Oh JH,
    7. Chang HJ,
    8. Kim TH and
    9. Park SW
    : Clinical outcomes of chemoradiotherapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Radiat Oncol 6: 51, 2011. PMID: 21595980. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-6-51
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Hamauchi S,
    2. Yamazaki K,
    3. Yasui H,
    4. Boku N,
    5. Onozawa Y,
    6. Fukutomi A,
    7. Machida N,
    8. Yokota T,
    9. Todaka A,
    10. Taniguchi H,
    11. Tsushima T,
    12. Funakoshi T,
    13. Tabuse H and
    14. Shibata Y
    : Safety and efficacy of proton-beam radiation therapy for patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer. Annals of Oncology 23: xi160, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/s0923-7534(20)32506-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Berman A,
    2. Both S,
    3. Sharkoski T,
    4. Goldrath K,
    5. Tochner Z,
    6. Apisarnthanarax S,
    7. Metz J and
    8. Plastaras J
    : Proton reirradiation of recurrent rectal cancer: Dosimetric comparison, toxicities, and preliminary outcomes. International Journal of Particle Therapy 1(1): 2-13, 2017. DOI: 10.14338/ijpt.13-00002.1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Kanai T,
    2. Endo M,
    3. Minohara S,
    4. Miyahara N,
    5. Koyama-ito H,
    6. Tomura H,
    7. Matsufuji N,
    8. Futami Y,
    9. Fukumura A,
    10. Hiraoka T,
    11. Furusawa Y,
    12. Ando K,
    13. Suzuki M,
    14. Soga F and
    15. Kawachi K
    : Biophysical characteristics of HIMAC clinical irradiation system for heavy-ion radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 44(1): 201-210, 1999. PMID: 10219815. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-016(98)00544-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Yamada S,
    2. Kamada T,
    3. Ebner DK,
    4. Shinoto M,
    5. Terashima K,
    6. Isozaki Y,
    7. Yasuda S,
    8. Makishima H,
    9. Tsuji H,
    10. Tsujii H,
    11. Isozaki T,
    12. Endo S,
    13. Takahashi K,
    14. Sekimoto M,
    15. Saito N,
    16. Matsubara H and Working Group on Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer
    : Carbon-ion radiation therapy for pelvic recurrence of rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 96(1): 93-101, 2016. PMID: 27375166. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.04.022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Shinoto M,
    2. Yamada S,
    3. Okamoto M,
    4. Shioyama Y,
    5. Ohno T,
    6. Nakano T,
    7. Nemoto K,
    8. Isozaki Y,
    9. Kawashiro S,
    10. Tsuji H and
    11. Kamada T
    : Carbon-ion radiotherapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer: Japan Carbon-ion Radiation Oncology Study Group (J-CROS) Study 1404 Rectum. Radiother Oncol 132: 236-240, 2019. PMID: 30360998. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.10.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Gerweck LE and
    2. Kozin SV
    : Relative biological effectiveness of proton beams in clinical therapy. Radiother Oncol 50(2): 135-42, 1999. PMID: 10368035. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(98)00092-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Law MP,
    2. Ahier RG and
    3. Field SB
    : The effect of prior heat treatment on the thermal enhancement of radiation damage in the mouse ear. Br J Radiol 52(616): 315-321, 1979. PMID: 444823. DOI: 10.1259/0007-1285-52-616-315
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Song CW
    : Effect of local hyperthermia on blood flow and microenvironment: a review. Cancer Res 44(10 Suppl): 4721s-730s, 1984. PMID: 6467226.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Wust P,
    2. Hildebrandt B,
    3. Sreenivasa G,
    4. Rau B,
    5. Gellermann J,
    6. Riess H,
    7. Felix R and
    8. Schlag PM
    : Hyperthermia in combined treatment of cancer. Lancet Oncol 3(8): 487-497, 2002. PMID: 12147435. DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(02)00818-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Datta NR,
    2. Puric E,
    3. Schneider R,
    4. Weber DC,
    5. Rogers S and
    6. Bodis S
    : Could hyperthermia with proton therapy mimic carbon ion therapy? Exploring a thermo-radiobiological rationale. Int J Hyperthermia 30(7): 524-530, 2014. PMID: 25314095. DOI: 10.3109/02656736.2014.963703
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Kemmochi A,
    2. Hisakura K,
    3. Terashima H,
    4. Akashi Y,
    5. Sakurai H and
    6. Ohkohchi N
    : Surgical spacer insertion for proton beam therapy to the near-gastrointestinal tumor. Report of six cases. Nihon Rinsho Geka Gakkai Zasshi (Journal of Japan Surgical Association) 75(5): 1164-1168, 2021. DOI: 10.3919/jjsa.75.1164
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. Akasaka H,
    2. Sasaki R,
    3. Miyawaki D,
    4. Mukumoto N,
    5. Sulaiman NS,
    6. Nagata M,
    7. Yamada S,
    8. Murakami M,
    9. Demizu Y and
    10. Fukumoto T
    : Preclinical evaluation of bioabsorbable polyglycolic acid spacer for particle therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 90(5): 1177-1185, 2014. PMID: 25539373. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.07.048
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 41 (7)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 41, Issue 7
July 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Proton Beam Therapy for Local Recurrence of Rectal Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Proton Beam Therapy for Local Recurrence of Rectal Cancer
YUICHI HIROSHIMA, HITOSHI ISHIKAWA, MOTOHIRO MURAKAMI, MASATOSHI NAKAMURA, SHOSEI SHIMIZU, TSUYOSHI ENOMOTO, TATSUYA ODA, MASASHI MIZUMOTO, KEI NAKAI, TOSHIYUKI OKUMURA, HIDEYUKI SAKURAI
Anticancer Research Jul 2021, 41 (7) 3589-3595; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15147

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Proton Beam Therapy for Local Recurrence of Rectal Cancer
YUICHI HIROSHIMA, HITOSHI ISHIKAWA, MOTOHIRO MURAKAMI, MASATOSHI NAKAMURA, SHOSEI SHIMIZU, TSUYOSHI ENOMOTO, TATSUYA ODA, MASASHI MIZUMOTO, KEI NAKAI, TOSHIYUKI OKUMURA, HIDEYUKI SAKURAI
Anticancer Research Jul 2021, 41 (7) 3589-3595; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15147
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Clinical Impact of Proton Beam Therapy for Postoperative Lymph Node Oligorecurrence of Esophageal Cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Tumor Budding Grade and T Stage as Recurrence Predictors of High-risk Stage II Colorectal Cancer
  • Pathologic Complete Response (pCR) in Patient With Myxofibrosarcoma Who Underwent Neoadjuvant Radiation Concurrent to Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  • Machine Learning Model to Guide Empirical Antimicrobial Therapy in Febrile Neutropenic Patients With Hematologic Malignancies
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • rectal cancer
  • local recurrence
  • Proton beam therapy
  • dose escalation
  • chemoradiotherapy
  • particle beam therapy
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire