The Ewha Medical Journal
Ewha Womans University College of Medicine and Ewha Medical Research Institute
Review

Clinical indications and future directions of carbon-ion radiotherapy: a narrative review

Seo Hee Choi1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4083-6414, Woong Sub Koom1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9435-7750, Hong In Yoon1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2106-6856, Kyung Hwan Kim1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6713-1350, Chan Woo Wee1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0631-7549, Jaeho Cho1https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9966-5157, Yong Bae Kim1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4884-2330, Ki Chang Keum1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4123-7998, Ik Jae Lee1,*https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7165-3373
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Heavy Ion Therapy Research Institute, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University Health System, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
*Corresponding author: Ik Jae Lee, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heavy Ion Therapy Research Institute, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University Health System, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea, E-mail: ikjae412@yuhs.ac

© Copyright 2024 Ewha Womans University College of Medicine and Ewha Medical Research Institute. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Aug 02, 2024; Revised: Sep 23, 2024; Accepted: Sep 23, 2024

Published Online: Oct 31, 2024

Abstract

Carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) offers superior dose distributions and greater biological effectiveness than conventional photon-based radiotherapy (RT). Due to its higher linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness, CIRT is particularly effective against radioresistant tumors and those located near critical organs. Since the first dedicated CIRT facility was established in Japan in 1994, CIRT has demonstrated remarkable efficacy against various malignancies, including head and neck tumors, skull base and upper cervical spine tumors, non-small-cell lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and bone and soft tissue sarcomas. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the current status of CIRT, highlighting its clinical indications and future directions. According to clinical studies, CIRT achieves high local control rates with manageable toxicity across multiple cancer types. For instance, in head and neck tumors (e.g., adenoid cystic carcinoma and mucosal melanoma), CIRT has achieved local control rates exceeding 80%. In early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer, CIRT has resulted in local control rates over 90% with minimal toxicity. Moreover, CIRT has shown promise in treating challenging cases of hepatocellular carcinoma and pancreatic cancer, where conventional therapies are limited. Nonetheless, the global adoption of CIRT remains limited due to high costs and complexity. Future directions include conducting randomized controlled trials to establish high-level evidence, integrating new technologies such as ultrahigh-dose-rate (FLASH) therapy, and expanding CIRT facilities globally with strategic planning and cost-effectiveness analyses. If these challenges are addressed, CIRT is poised to play a transformative role in cancer treatment, improving survival rates and the quality of life.

Keywords: Carbon-ion radiotherapy; Charged particle therapy; Bragg peak; Review; Radioresistant tumors

Introduction

Background

Radiotherapy (RT) has long been a cornerstone of cancer treatment. It employs ionizing radiation to damage the DNA in tumor cells, initiating a series of biochemical reactions that result in cell death. Among the various types of ionizing radiation, X-rays and gamma rays are most commonly used, with X-ray therapy being the standard in clinical settings. Despite its prevalent use, X-ray therapy faces significant challenges, particularly in avoiding damage to healthy tissues near the tumor, especially when these tissues are close to vital organs. These challenges have spurred the development of alternative RT methods that offer more favorable dose distributions and improved biological effects.

In recent years, charged particle beam therapy, often referred to as particle therapy, has become a significant advancement in the field of RT. This innovative method includes proton and carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT), offering substantial physical and biological advantages over traditional photon-based therapies. Notably, carbon ions have a higher linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness (RBE) than protons, enhancing their effectiveness in controlling tumors, particularly those that are radioresistant or situated near critical organs [1,2]. The establishment of the first dedicated CIRT facility in Japan in 1994 was a pivotal moment in the history of RT. This development was inspired by earlier research that recognized the therapeutic potential of high-linear energy transfer radiation. Since then, CIRT has been successfully implemented in a limited number of countries, including China, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Korea, where it has shown remarkable efficacy in treating various malignancies. A recent meta-analysis also confirmed that CIRT is a safe and effective option for achieving local control (LC) in patients with solid tumors [3].

In Korea, the Yonsei Cancer Center has been at the forefront of adopting CIRT, marking a significant milestone in the nation's medical advancement. The planning for the Heavy Ion Therapy Center at Yonsei Cancer Center began in 2013, leading to the establishment of Korea's first CIRT facility, which became operational in April 2023. This center is globally recognized for its state-of-the-art infrastructure, including the world's first configuration with a fixed beam and two superconducting gantries dedicated to CIRT. The Heavy Ion Therapy Center at the Yonsei Cancer Center represents a decade of meticulous planning and collaboration, with over 200 prostate cancer patients successfully treated by mid-2024. The center has expanded its treatment offerings to include CIRT for pancreatic, liver, and lung cancers starting in May 2024. The Yonsei Cancer Center's commitment to advancing CIRT not only enhances treatment options for Korean patients but also positions the center as a leading institution in the global CIRT community.

Despite the clear therapeutic benefits of CIRT, its global adoption remains limited primarily due to the high costs and complexity associated with establishing such facilities. However, the increasing number of CIRT centers and ongoing clinical research are expanding its applications and accessibility.

Objectives

This review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current status of CIRT, encompassing its physical and biological characteristics, clinical indications, and future directions. By exploring the progress and potential of CIRT, this study sought to highlight its crucial role in advancing cancer treatment and the need for wider implementation of this advanced technology.

Ethics statement

As this study is a literature review, it did not require institutional review board approval or individual consent.

Head and neck tumors

Surgical resection is the primary treatment for head and neck malignancies. However, the complexity of this region often makes it challenging to achieve complete resection without significant morbidity. Consequently, RT is frequently used as either primary or adjuvant therapy. CIRT is particularly effective in these cases due to its superior dose distribution and enhanced biological efficacy. It enables precise targeting of the tumor while sparing radiosensitive structures such as the salivary glands, cranial nerves, and brainstem. CIRT has shown favorable outcomes, especially in treating radioresistant tumors like adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) and chordomas, achieving high LC rates with manageable toxicity. Although direct comparative studies with conventional treatments are limited, both CIRT and proton therapy have been successfully used as primary and postoperative treatments, either alone or in combination with photon therapy.

ACC in the head and neck poses significant treatment challenges due to its propensity for perineural invasion and involvement of the skull base, which complicates achieving complete surgical resection. CIRT has emerged as a promising treatment option for managing ACC, especially in patients with postoperative residual disease or unresectable tumors. An initial study [4] from the Heavy Ion Research Center (GSI) in Heidelberg reported 1- and 3-year LC rates of 80.8% and 64.6%, respectively, for patients treated with a combination of photon therapy and a CIRT boost, totaling 72 Gy(RBE). At the National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) in Japan, a dose-escalation trial identified the maximum tolerated dose as 70.2 Gy(RBE) in 18 fractions, resulting in a 5-year LC rate of 73% [5]. The COSMIC trial, a phase II study in Heidelberg, reported a 3-year LC rate of 81.9% for ACC, with higher control rates observed in patients with residual disease post-resection [6]. Large-scale studies at the GSI [7] and NIRS [8] confirmed these findings, with 3- and 5-year LC rates of approximately 81% and 73%, respectively, and low incidence of severe toxicity. Additionally, a sub-analysis of a Japanese multicenter study (1402 HN) by the Japan Carbon-Ion Radiation Oncology Study Group (J-CROS) [9] reported 2- and 5-year LC rates of 88% and 68%, respectively. Meanwhile, the 2- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 94% and 74%, respectively, with 15% of the patients experiencing grade 3 or higher toxicities, such as osteoradionecrosis and vision loss. These studies highlight the effectiveness of CIRT in managing ACC, particularly in challenging cases involving residual disease.

CIRT has also shown significant effectiveness in treating head and neck mucosal melanoma, a notably aggressive and radioresistant cancer. Various studies, including both prospective and retrospective analyses from institutions such as the NIRS [5,8], Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center [10], National Centre for Oncological Hadrontherapy in Italy [11], Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center [12], and Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT) in Germany [13], have documented the benefits of CIRT in this context. A multicenter retrospective study [14] in Japan, which included 260 patients with mucosal melanoma, reported a 2-year LC rate of 83.9% and an OS rate of 69.4%, with grade 3 or higher toxicities occurring in 19% of the patients. At the NIRS, dose adjustments over time, from 70.2 Gy(RBE) in 18 fractions to 57.6 Gy(RBE) in 16 fractions, resulted in a 5-year LC rate of 75% and an OS rate of 35% [5,8]. The HIT in Germany reported a 3-year LC rate of 58.3% and an OS rate of 16.2% for paranasal sinus melanoma [13], highlighting the challenges in treating this type of tumor. In cases of choroidal melanoma, NIRS reported a 5-year LC rate of 92.8% and an OS rate of 80.4%, although 31.6% of patients experienced neovascular glaucoma as a late toxicity [15,16]. These findings demonstrate the potential of CIRT to achieve high LC rates in challenging melanoma cases, particularly in anatomically complex regions such as the head, neck, and choroid.

Skull base and upper cervical spine tumors

Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of CIRT in treating tumors located at the skull base and upper spine, particularly in patients with sarcoma where surgical resection is challenging or incomplete. A prospective study [17] involving 27 patients with unresected sarcomas of mixed histology reported a 3-year LC rate of 91.8% following CIRT administration at a dose of 70.4 Gy(RBE) in 16 fractions. However, 23.1% of these patients experienced late radiation-related complications of grade 3 or higher. Similarly, another prospective study [18] conducted at Gunma University included 10 patients with unresectable bone or soft tissue sarcomas at the skull base. These patients received CIRT at the same dosage and reported a 3-year LC rate of 72.9%. These studies underscore the potential of CIRT to achieve substantial LC in regions that are difficult to treat, although concerns about late toxicity remain unresolved.

Chordomas and chondrosarcomas of the skull base have been significant targets for charged-particle therapy due to their complex anatomical locations and the high radiation doses needed for effective treatment [19,20]. At HIT, a retrospective study [21] conducted in 155 patients with skull base chordomas treated with 60 Gy(RBE) in 20 fractions reported 5-year and 10-year LC rates of 72% and 54%, respectively. Another follow-up study [22] at HIT involving 111 patients treated with 66 Gy(RBE) in 22 fractions reported a 5-year LC rate of 65%. In Italy, a study carried out at the National Centre for Oncological Hadrontherapy reported a 5-year LC rate of 71% in 135 patients treated with 70.4 Gy(RBE) in 16 fractions for skull base chordoma [23]. For chondrosarcoma, German studies [2426] demonstrated a 3-year LC rate of 96.2% and a 10-year LC rate of 88% in patients treated with 60 Gy(RBE) in 20 fractions, with a low incidence of severe toxicity. These findings underscore the efficacy of CIRT in managing these rare but challenging tumors, providing long-term control with an acceptable safety profile.

Non-small-cell lung cancer

RT is a crucial treatment modality for lung cancer and the second most common treatment in Korea [27]. CIRT has become a viable and effective treatment option for localized non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), especially in patients who are not suitable candidates for surgery due to comorbidities or advanced age. Since its introduction for NSCLC in November 1994, CIRT has shown effectiveness in treating early-stage NSCLC, particularly in tumors located peripherally and in selected cases of central tumors. CIRT offers potential advantages over traditional treatments for patients who need to minimize radiation exposure to the lungs, such as those suffering from interstitial lung disease (ILD). Multiple studies have confirmed the efficacy of CIRT in improving LC with an acceptable toxicity profile (Table 1).

Table 1. Clinical studies and outcomes of patients with NSCLC treated with CIRT
Author Study design No. of patients CIRT dose LC OS Acute toxicity Late toxicity
Early-stage NSCLC
 Miyamoto et al. [28] Phase I/II 81 59.4–95.4 Gy(RBE)/9–18 fr First trial: 64%
Second trial: 84%
5-yr 42% Gr3 RP=3
 Miyamoto et al. [29] Phase II 50 72 Gy(RBE)/9 fr 5-yr 94.7% 5-yr 50% (IA 55.2%, IB 42.9%) No Gr3≤toxicity
Gr 2 skin=1,
Gr 2 RP=1
Gr 3 skin=1
Gr 2 skin=1
Gr 2 lung=2
 Miyamoto et al. [30] Phase II 79 52.8 Gy(RBE)/4 fr for stage IA, 60 Gy(RBE)/4 fr for stage IB 5-yr 90% Overall: 5-yr 45%,
stage IA: 5-yr 62%,
stage IB: 25%
No Gr3≤toxicity
Gr 2 skin=5
Gr 2 lung=1
No Gr3≤toxicity
Gr 2 skin=1
Gr 2 lung=1
 Yamamoto et al. [31] Phase I/II 218 28–50 Gy(RBE)/1 fr 36–50 Gy(RBE):
3-yr 84.2%, 5-yr 80.5%
28-34 Gy(RBE):
3-yr 63.7%, 5-yr 54.4%
36–50 Gy(RBE):
3-yr 76.2%, 5-yr 56.8%
28–34 Gy(RBE):
3-yr 50.7%, 5-yr 32.8%
No Gr3≤toxicity
Gr 2 toxicity=2%
Gr 3 chest wall pain=1 (50 Gy(RBE))
 Saitoh et al. [32] Phase II 37 52.8–60 Gy(RBE)/4 fr Overall:
2-yr 91.2%, 5-yr 88.1%
T1:
2-yr 91.3%, 5-yr 86.7%
T2:
2-yr 90%, 5-yr 90%
Overall:
2-yr 91.9%, 5-yr 74/9%
T1:
5-yr 80%
T2:
66.7%
No Gr 4≤toxicity,
Gr 3 RP=1,
Gr 2 RP=1
 Ono et al. [33] Retrospective 57 50 Gy(RBE)/1 fr 3-yr 96.4%, 5-yr 91.8% 3-yr 91.2%, 5-yr 81.7% No Gr 3≤toxicity
Gr 2 rib fracture=4 (7.0%)
Gr 2 peripheral motor neuropathy=2 (3.5%)
 Kubo et al. (J-CROS-LUNG) [34] Multicenter prospective observational registry study 95 72 Gy(RBE)/16 fr–50 Gy(RBE)/1 fr 3-yr 87.3% 3-yr 59.3% No Gr 4≤toxicity,
3-yr Gr2≤ RP rate=3.2%,
Risk factor for RP=FEV1<0.9L, dose≥67 Gy(RBE)
Locally advanced NSCLC
 Takahashi et al. [37] Phase I/II 62 68–76 Gy(RBE)/16 fr 2-yr 93.1%
(cT3–4N0 only: 2-yr 100%)
2-yr 51.9%
(cT3–4N0 only: 2-yr 69.3%)
Gr 2 RP=6.5%
Gr 3 RP=1.6%
Gr 3 tracheoesophageal fistula=1
No grade 4/5 toxicity
 Hayashi et al. [38] Retrospective 141 54–76 Gy(RBE)/12–16 fr 2-yr 80.3%, 3-yr 75.4% 2-yr 58.7%, 3-yr 47.5% Gr 2 skin=13.5% Gr 4 mediastinal hemorrhage=0.7%
Gr 3 RP=3.5%
Gr 3 bronchial fistula=7%
 Karube et al. [39] Retrospective 64 52.8–60 Gy(RBE)/4 fr, 64–70.4 Gy(RBE)/16 fr 2-yr 81.8% Overall: 2-yr 62.2%
N0: 2-yr 67.8%
N1-N2: 2-yr 62.2%
Gr 2 lung infection=3
Gr 2 lung reaction=4
Gr 2 skin reaction=3
Gr 2 chest wall pain=1
NR
 Anzai et al. [40] Retrospective 24 64–76 Gy(RBE)/16 fr 2-yr 73.9%, 3-yr 70.2% 2-yr 54.9%, 3-yr 42% No Gr 3≤toxicity Gr 4 mediastinal hemorrhage=1
Gr 3 RP=4
Gr 3 bronchial fistula=1

NSCLC, non-small-cell lung cancer; CIRT, carbon-ion radiotherapy; LC, local control; OS, overall survival; RBE, relative biological effectiveness; fr, fractions; yr, year; Gr, grade; RP, radiation pneumonitis; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 s; J-CROS, Japan Carbon–Ion Radiation Oncology Study Group; NR, not reported.

Download Excel Table

At the NIRS in Japan, several hypofractionation and dose-escalation studies explored the optimal dosing regimens for CIRT in stage I NSCLC. An initial dose of 59.4 Gy(RBE) in 18 fractions was progressively refined to 72 Gy(RBE) in nine fractions, 52.8 Gy(RBE) in four fractions, and even a single-fraction dose of 50 Gy(RBE). These studies [2832] reported a 3-year OS rate of approximately 70%–80% and a 3-year LC rate exceeding 90% in patients with stage IA tumors, although the LC rate was lower in patients with stage IB tumors. The incidence of grade 2 or higher toxicity was less than 2%. Recent phase I/II Japanese studies [31] and other recent studies [33] have identified 50 Gy(RBE) as the optimal dose for dose-escalated, single-fraction CIRT, demonstrating its feasibility as a treatment option with high LC and low toxicity rates. In a Japanese multicenter study (J-CROS-LUNG) [34], 95 patients with inoperable stage I NSCLC received CIRT using regimens such as 64–72 Gy(RBE) in 12–16 fractions, 54–64 Gy(RBE) in four fractions, and 50 Gy(RBE) in one fraction. This study reported a 3-year LC rate of 87.3%, an OS rate of 59.3%, and a 3-year cumulative incidence of grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis of 3.2%. A retrospective, single-institutional study [35] directly comparing CIRT and stereotactic body RT for early-stage NSCLC found that CIRT achieved significantly higher 3-year OS rates (80.1% vs. 71.6%) and LC rates (87.7% vs. 79.1%) than stereotactic body RT. Furthermore, a cost-effectiveness analysis at Gunma University [36] suggested that while CIRT is cost-effective for stage I NSCLC, careful resource management could enhance its economic viability. These outcomes highlight CIRT's potential to achieve high LC with low toxicity, particularly in patients with limited surgical options.

CIRT has shown promising results in treating locally advanced NSCLC (LA-NSCLC), despite the inherent challenges associated with this stage of the disease. In a phase I/II study [37] at NIRS involving 62 patients with stage IIA–IIIA NSCLC treated with CIRT at a dose of 76 Gy(RBE), the 2-year LC and OS rates were 93% and 52%, respectively. Notably, patients with N0 disease exhibited a 2-year LC rate of 100% and an OS rate of 69%, with cases pf no grade 3 or higher toxicity observed following treatment with 72 Gy(RBE). A retrospective study [38] of 141 patients with LA-NSCLC treated with a median dose of 72 Gy(RBE) in 16 fractions reported 2-year LC and OS rates of 80.3% and 58.7%, respectively. In a Japanese multicenter study [39] of patients with LA-NSCLC, the 2-year LC and OS rates were 81.8% and 62.2%, respectively, with no reported adverse effects higher than grade 2. Similarly, Anzai et al. [40] analyzed 65 patients with stage III NSCLC treated at NIRS with a median dose of 72 Gy(RBE), resulting in 2-year LC and OS rates of 74% and 55%, respectively. These studies suggest that CIRT, even without concurrent chemotherapy, may be a viable treatment option for patients with LA-NSCLC, achieving substantial LC and survival rates. However, further research is needed to clarify the role of CIRT in combination with systemic treatments, such as chemotherapy or immunotherapy.

Treating NSCLC in patients with ILD presents significant challenges due to the risk of acute exacerbation. However, recent research indicates that proton therapy [41] or CIRT may be safe and effective options. A retrospective study [42] of 124 patients with stage I NSCLC, including 26 with ILD, found that although patients with ILD had a lower OS (59.7% vs. 83.2%), CIRT did not significantly increase the incidence of severe side effects. Additionally, a multi-institutional study [43] of 30 patients with ILD reported a 3-year LC rate of 88.1%, with only 3.3% experiencing grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis. These findings suggest that CIRT could be a viable treatment for early-stage NSCLC in patients with ILD.

Hepatocellular carcinoma

CIRT has demonstrated significant potential in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), proving effective not only in early-stage cases but also in more complex situations where alternative treatments are limited. It is particularly beneficial for patients with large tumors, tumors in difficult anatomical locations such as near the porta hepatis or major blood vessels, and for those with compromised liver function. In cases where surgical resection or photon therapy may present significant risks, CIRT offers a safer alternative. Moreover, CIRT is a viable treatment option for patients experiencing recurrent HCC following previous interventions like transarterial chemoembolization or radiofrequency ablation (RFA), where it is critical to minimize additional liver damage.

In 2004, the NIRS conducted a prospective phase I trial [44] to explore the impact of increasing the dose from 49.5 Gy(RBE) to 79.5 Gy(RBE) in 15 fractions. The trial found no severe adverse effects and reported an 81% LC rate at both 3 and 5 years. Subsequent phase I and II trials [45] established 52.8 Gy(RBE) in four fractions as the recommended dose, with no cases of dose-limiting toxicity. Gunma University reported a 92.3% LC rate at 2 years and 76.5% at 4 years using doses of 52.8 Gy(RBE) and 60 Gy(RBE) in four fractions, with only grade 3 hepatobiliary toxicity reported in two patients [46,47]. A multi-institutional retrospective study [48] conducted by the J-CROS Group in 174 patients with HCC treated with CIRT (48–60 Gy(RBE) in two to four fractions) reported a 3-year LC rate of 81.0% and a 3-year OS rate of 73.3%, with only a few patients experiencing grade 3 or higher acute or late toxicity. Recent studies have refined the dosing strategy, using two or four fractions for tumors distant from the gastrointestinal tract and 12 or more fractions for those closer to the gastrointestinal tract to minimize adverse effects [4952].

The majority of existing literature on CIRT has focused primarily on its usage, with only a limited number of small retrospective studies comparing it to other treatment modalities. Shiba et al. [50] compared CIRT with transarterial chemoembolization after propensity score matching. They found that CIRT led to significantly better 3-year OS (88% vs. 58%, P<0.05) and LC (80% vs. 26%, P<0.01) rates. Fujita et al. [53] compared the efficacy of CIRT and RFA in early-stage HCC in a study of 560 patients. CIRT was associated with significantly lower cumulative intrasubsegmental recurrence rates than RFA (2 years: 12.6% vs. 31.7%; 5 years: 15.5% vs. 49.6%), although the local recurrence, progression-free survival, and OS rates were similar between the groups. Notably, no grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in the CIRT group, while 1.2% of the patients in the RFA group experienced grade 3 adverse events. Additionally, a comparative study by Komatsu et al. [54] reported similar outcomes between CIRT and proton beam therapy, with 5-year LC and OS rates of 93% and 36.3%, respectively, for CIRT.

CIRT has demonstrated significant potential in managing complex HCC cases, where conventional RT may pose considerable risks. Studies have demonstrated that CIRT can effectively minimize radiation-induced liver disease while still achieving high LC rates, even in patients with compromised liver function or large tumors. Hiroshima et al. [55] reported a low incidence of grade 3 toxicity in patients with Child-Pugh B liver function treated with CIRT. Meanwhile, Tomizawa et al. [52] reported no grade 4 toxicity in patients who underwent re-irradiation with CIRT for intrahepatic HCC recurrence. Furthermore, CIRT has proven effective in treating HCC located near critical structures such as the caudate lobe and porta hepatis, maintaining high LC rates and reducing the incidence of adverse effects in these challenging scenarios [56,57].

Pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is known for its resistance to conventional RT and its generally poor prognosis, underscoring the urgency for more effective treatment approaches. The pancreas's close proximity to radiosensitive organs like the stomach and bowel restricts the amount of radiation that can be safely administered using photon therapy. CIRT has not only shown a strong biological rationale in vitro [58,59], but has also yielded promising clinical results, especially in cases of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Recent studies have further investigated the potential of CIRT in treating resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancers, aiming to improve surgical outcomes and decrease recurrence rates.

CIRT has emerged as a promising alternative for treating locally advanced pancreatic cancer, where conventional treatments often show limited efficacy. A phase 1/2 prospective clinical trial conducted at the NIRS [60] assessed the maximum tolerated dose of CIRT combined with gemcitabine. The study reported a 2-year local progression-free rate of 83% and a 2-year OS rate of 48% for patients receiving more than 45.6 Gy(RBE). A multicenter study (J-CROS 1403) [61] reported a median survival of 21.5 months, with a 2-year OS rate of 46% and a 2-year local recurrence rate of 24%. Notably, only 1% of patients experienced late grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity, and no cases of severe toxicity were observed. Additionally, a study from Gunma University [62], which analyzed patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy (±neoadjuvant or adjuvant multiagent chemotherapy), reported a 2-year LC rate of 76.1%, a 2-year OS rate of 56.6%, and a median survival of 29.6 months. These findings suggest that CIRT may improve outcomes in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, further research is needed to comprehensively define its role and determine the optimal combination strategies with chemotherapy.

For resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancers, CIRT has been investigated as a preoperative treatment to enhance surgical outcomes and decrease recurrence rates. Promising results have emerged from studies conducted by Japan's NIRS. A phase I trial [63] demonstrated that 90% of patients could undergo R0 resection after receiving CIRT at 30–36.8 Gy(RBE) in eight fractions, with no local recurrences reported. The 5-year OS rate of patients who underwent surgery was 52%. Based on these findings, a subsequent phase II study [64] reported that 89% of patients underwent surgery after receiving CIRT, with a 5-year LC rate of 92.3% and an OS rate of 49%. Ongoing trials, such as the PIOPPO study in Italy [65], will further explore the efficacy of CIRT combined with chemotherapy in improving surgical outcomes for this group of patients.

Prostate cancer

For prostate cancer, RT is crucial for achieving optimal tumor control while minimizing gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities. While photon therapy is widely used, charged-particle therapies such as proton therapy and CIRT offer improved dose distribution and a lower incidence of side effects. This advantage is similar to what is observed in breast cancer [66,67]. The low alpha/beta ratio in prostate cancer makes it particularly amenable to hypofractionated treatment schedules [68]. Hypofractionated CIRT has shown high rates of biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) with reduced toxicity compared to photon therapy. Although direct comparisons are limited, current studies suggest that CIRT may offer significant benefits in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Since 1995, CIRT has been administered to over 4,100 prostate cancer patients in Japan, with its use refined through numerous clinical trials. Initial phase I/II trials at NIRS escalated the doses from 54 Gy(RBE) to 72 Gy(RBE) across 20 fractions [69,70]. The second trial (protocol 9703) established 66 Gy(RBE) as the recommended dose [70,71]. A subsequent phase II trial (protocol 9904) [72] validated this regimen and reported 4-year bRFS rates of 87% in low-risk patients and 88% in high-risk patients. In this group, 5% experienced grade 2 genitourinary toxicity, 2% had gastrointestinal toxicity, and there were no grade 3 or higher events. Further research led to a reduction in dose to 63 Gy(RBE) in 20 fractions and subsequently to 57.6 Gy(RBE) in 16 fractions, achieving a 5-year bRFS rate of 88.5% with fewer cases of grade 2 genitourinary toxicity [73]. In 2010, protocol 1002 [74] adopted 51.6 Gy(RBE) in 12 fractions as the standard, with 5-year bRFS rates of 95.1%, 90.9%, and 91.1% in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively, and late grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity in only 6.3% and 0.4% of patients, respectively. A Japanese multicenter study (J-CROS1501PR) [75] involving 2,157 patients further validated these outcomes, with 5-year RFS rates of 92%, 89%, and 92% in the respective risk groups and a lower incidence of grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity.

In Germany and Italy, CIRT for prostate cancer has demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy outcomes. A clinical trial [76] at the HIT in Germany reported that CIRT was associated with a lower incidence of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities compared to proton therapy. Among those treated with CIRT, 28.9% experienced grade 1 cystitis, 13.3% experienced grade 2 cystitis, 11.1% experienced grade 1 proctitis, and 2.2% experienced grade 2 proctitis. In Italy, a trial that combined CIRT with photon therapy for patients at high risk of prostate cancer indicated that this combined approach might offer better outcomes than photon therapy alone [77,78]. Additionally, quality of life assessments from studies conducted in Germany, Japan, and China [76,79,80] showed that CIRT had a minimal long-term impact on the quality of life. These studies reported transient acute genitourinary toxicity and no cases of significant gastrointestinal toxicity, reinforcing its safety and efficacy in prostate cancer.

Bone and soft tissue sarcoma

Sarcomas are known for their radioresistance and often develop in anatomically challenging locations, which complicates surgical resection. As a result, RT plays a pivotal role, especially for patients with unresectable tumors or residual disease. While traditional photon therapy is commonly employed, there is a growing preference for charged-particle therapies, such as CIRT, due to their enhanced efficacy. CIRT has demonstrated effectiveness in treating sarcomas, particularly those that are radioresistant or situated in complex anatomical areas. There is substantial evidence supporting the effectiveness of CIRT in improving LC and OS rates in patients with various types of sarcomas (Table 2).

Table 2. Clinical studies and outcomes of patients with bone and soft tissue sarcomas treated with CIRT
Author Study design Tumor type and location No. of patients CIRT dose (Gy(RBE)) LC OS Acute toxicity Late toxicity
Bone sarcoma
 Imai et al. [81] Retrospective Sacral chordoma 188 64–73.6 5-yr 77.2% 5-yr 81.1% NR Gr 3 peripheral nerve toxicity=6, Gr 4 skin=2
 Imai et al. [82] Retrospective Chondrosarcoma 73 64–73.6 5-yr 53% 5-yr 53% NR Gr 3≤toxicity=8, Gr 3 skin=3, bone fracture=4, bone necrosis=1
 Wu et al. [83] Retrospective Chordoma or chondrosarcoma 21 57–80 1-yr 93.8%, 2-yr 85.2% 1-yr 100%, 2-yr 100% Gr 1 skin=14.2%, Gr 1 myelosuppression=33.3%
No Gr 2≤toxicity.
No severe late toxicity
 Bostel et al. [84] Retrospective Primary or recurrent sacrococcygeal chordoma 68 60–70.4 Overall: 1-yr 90%, 2-yr 80%, 3-yr 65%, 5-yr 53%
Primary: 1-yr 96%, 2-yr 88%, 3-yr 77%, 5-yr 62%
Recurrent: 1-yr 68%, 2-yr 54%, 3-yr 27%, 5-yr 27%
Overall:
1-yr 97%, 2-yr 97%, 3-yr 86%, 5-yr 74%
NR Radiogenic toxicity=40 (59%; 14 received at least 80 GyE)
Gr 3≤=21%, Sacral insufficiency fractures=49%
 Shiba et al. [85] Retrospective Bone sarcoma 53 64–70.4 Overall: 3-yr 88.6%, 5-yr 73.8%
Chordoma: 3-yr 92.5%, 5-yr 84.8%
Non-chordoma: 3-yr 82.2%, 5-yr 54.8%
Osteosarcoma: 3-yr 87.5%
Chondrosarcoma: 3-yr 60%
Overall: 3-yr 79.7%, 5-yr 79.7%
Chordoma: 3-yr 91.3%, 5-yr 91.3%
Non-chordoma: 3-yr 60.7%, 5-yr 60.7%
Osteosarcoma: 3-yr 36.5%
Chondrosarcoma: 3-yr 59.3%
No Gr 3≤toxicity.
Gr 1 dermatitis=21
Gr 2 dermatitis=6
Gr 1 neuropathy=6
Gr 2 neuropathy 2
Gr 3 dermatitis=5
Gr 3 GI tract=1
Gr 3 infection=5
Gr 3 dermatitis=3
Gr 3 GI tract=1
Gr 2 neuropathy=12
Gr 2 urinary=3
Gr 2 bone fracture=4
 Matsunobu et al. [86] Retrospective Trunk osteosarcoma 78 52.8–73.6 5-yr 62% 5-yr 33%,
<70 Gy(RBE)=56%
≥70Gy(RBE)=27%
Gr 3 skin=3 Gr 3 skin/soft tissue=4
Gr 4 skin/soft tissue=3
Bone fracture requiring surgery=2
 Matsumoto et al. [87] Retrospective Primary spinal sarcoma 47 52.8–70.4 5-yr 79% 5-yr 52% Gr 3 skin=1 Gr 3 skin 1, Gr 4 skin ulcer 1,
Vertebral body compression=7 (more common in ≥70.4 GyE)
Gr 3 myelopathy=1
 Sugahara et al. [88] Phase I/II Extremity sarcoma 17 52.8–70.4 3-yr 76%, 5-yr 76% 3-yr 68%, 5-yr 56% Gr 1 skin=16 (94%) Gr 2 skin=1 (6%)
Gr 2 neuropathy=4 (24%)
Pediatric/young adult sarcoma
 Mohamad et al. [89] Retrospective Unresectable truncal osteosarcoma 26 52.8–73.6 3-yr 70%, 5-yr 63% 3-yr 50%, 5-yr 42% None Gr 3–4=4
(1 Gr 3 skin, 1 Gr 4 skin, 2 neuropathy)
 Combs et al. [90] Retrospective Skull base chordoma or chondrosarcoma 17 60–66.6 Only 1 tumor progression (60 months after CIRT) NR Only mild (Gr 1 or 2)
Focal alopecia=1 (6%), skin=1 (6%)
No severe late toxicity,
2 hormone deficiency requiring hormone substitution,
No secondary malignancy
Soft tissue sarcoma
 Serizawa et al. [91] Retrospective Unresectable retroperitoneal sarcoma 24 52.8–73.6 2-yr 77%, 5-yr 69% 2-yr 75%, 5-yr 50% Gr 1 skin=83%,
Gr 2 skin=17%
Gr2 neurotoxicity=21%
No Gr3≤toxicity
 Imai et al. [92] Phase I/II Unresectable axial soft tissue sarcoma (deep 96%, subdeep 4%) 128 64–73.6 3-yr 68%, 5-yr 65% 3-yr 60%, 5-yr 46% NR Gr3≤=4
Gr 3 spinal cord injury=1
Gr 3 peripheral nerve injury=1
Gr 4 colon injury=1
Gr 3 skin=1

CIRT, carbon-ion radiotherapy; Gy(RBE), gray (relative biological effectiveness); LC, local control; OS, overall survival; yr, year; NR, not reported; Gr, grade; GI, gastrointestinal.

Download Excel Table

CIRT has demonstrated significant efficacy in treating various types of bone sarcomas, particularly those that are inoperable or resistant to conventional therapies. In a study involving 188 patients treated with CIRT, Imai et al. [81,82] reported a 5-year LC rate of 77.2% and a 5-year OS rate of 81% in patients treated with CIRT at a dose of 64–73.6 Gy(RBE). More recent studies have also reported a 2-year LC rate exceeding 80% in patients with sacral chordomas or chondrosarcomas [83,84]. Furthermore, Shiba et al. [85] found that patients with inoperable bone sarcomas treated with CIRT exhibited a 3-year LC rate of 62% and an OS rate of 51%. For the treatment of primary spinal sarcomas, Matsunobu et al. [86] demonstrated that CIRT delivered at a dose of 64 Gy(RBE) in 16 fractions achieved a 5-year LC rate of 79% and an OS rate of 52%. The effectiveness of CIRT has also been prospectively evaluated in primary spinal sarcomas [87] or localized primary sarcomas of the extremities [88]. Moreover, it has shown potential in pediatric and young adult patients with bone tumors [89,90], providing effective treatment without significant growth disturbances or secondary malignancies, as observed in studies from the NIRS in Japan and HIT in Germany. These results collectively illustrate CIRT’s ability to provide effective tumor control with a manageable toxicity profile across various challenging bone sarcomas.

CIRT has shown promising results in treating retroperitoneal sarcoma, a particularly challenging subtype of soft tissue sarcomas due to their proximity to critical structures like the gastrointestinal tract. Since 1997, CIRT has been used at the NIRS to manage unresectable retroperitoneal sarcomas that are not extensively attached to the intestines and measure less than 20 cm, employing a dose of 70.4 Gy(RBE) delivered in 16 fractions over 4 weeks. Serizawa et al. [91] reported a 5-year LC rate of 69% and an OS rate of 50% in patients with unresectable retroperitoneal sarcomas with no gastrointestinal complications or grade 2 or higher toxicity. This finding suggests that CIRT is an effective treatment option for these cases. Additionally, Imai et al. [92] evaluated 128 patients with unresectable axial soft tissue sarcomas treated with CIRT at doses of 64–73.6 Gy(RBE). They reported a 5-year LC rate of 54% and a 5-year OS rate of 46%, with grade 3 or higher late adverse events occurring in four patients.

Although the administration of high-dose CIRT is associated with the risk of late toxicity, particularly osteoradionecrosis and soft tissue necrosis, its ability to achieve high LC rates in both bone and soft tissue sarcomas makes it an invaluable treatment option. The use of surgical spacers for tumors located near the gastrointestinal tract has proven to be an effective strategy for reducing the risk of severe complications [93,94], thereby enabling safer delivery of CIRT and improving patient outcomes.

Future directions

CIRT has demonstrated significant clinical efficacy across various types of malignancies and offers distinct advantages over conventional therapies due to its unique physical and biological properties. However, the lack of high-level evidence, especially from randomized controlled trials, challenges the establishment of CIRT's superiority over conventional therapies. To further solidify CIRT's role in modern oncology, it is crucial to address these gaps by conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials that directly compare CIRT with conventional therapies. In addition to these trials, adopting a multifaceted approach that includes long-term clinical cohort studies and the establishment of robust multicenter registries is essential. These initiatives will provide a deeper understanding of CIRT’s clinical benefits across diverse patient populations, refine patient selection criteria, and optimize treatment protocols. Moreover, future advancements in CIRT will be influenced by translational research. Key areas of exploration include the integration of ultrahigh-dose-rate (FLASH) therapy, which could further enhance the therapeutic window of CIRT by reducing the risk of normal tissue toxicity. Additionally, investigating the immunogenic effects of particle therapy could reveal potential synergies with emerging immunotherapies. As CIRT facilities continue to expand globally, particularly in leading countries such as Japan, the United States, Europe, and Korea, this growth must be managed through strategic planning and comprehensive cost-effectiveness analyses. These efforts should be complemented by initiatives to standardize treatment protocols and facilitate international collaboration to ensure that the benefits of CIRT are accessible to a broad range of patients worldwide. By addressing these challenges and capitalizing on new research opportunities, CIRT is expected to play a transformative role in cancer treatment.

Conclusion

The establishment of Korea's first CIRT center at the Yonsei Cancer Center, along with the development of additional CIRT centers in Korea and abroad, offers a significant opportunity to gather compelling evidence that could substantiate the clinical advantages of CIRT and broaden its uses. By coordinating clinical and translational research with carefully devised expansion strategies, CIRT is well-positioned to improve survival rates, enhance the quality of life for cancer patients, and potentially decrease the risk of secondary malignancies. These advancements highlight the pivotal role of CIRT as a critical modality in modern cancer treatment, setting the stage for its incorporation into worldwide oncological practices.

Authors' contributions

Project administration: Lee IJ

Conceptualization: Choi SH, Lee IJ

Methodology & data curation: Choi SH, Koom WS, Yoon HI, Kim KH, Wee CW, Cho J, Kim YB, Keum KC, Lee IJ

Funding acquisition: Choi SH, Lee IJ

Writing – original draft: Choi SH

Writing – review & editing : Choi SH, Koom WS, Yoon HI, Kim KH, Wee CW, Cho J, Kim YB, Keum KC, Lee IJ

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

This research was supported by Quantum Computing Based on Quantum Advantage Challenge Research (RS-2023-00257561) through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government (Ministry of Science and Information and Communication Technology). This research was supported by grants from the Korean Cancer Survivors Healthcare R&D Project through the National Cancer Center, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant numbers: RS-2023-CC139405 and RS-2023-CC139716).

Data availability

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Supplementary materials

Not applicable.

References

1.

Byun HK, Han MC, Yang K, Kim JS, Yoo GS, Koom WS, et al. Physical and biological characteristics of particle therapy for oncologists. Cancer Res Treat 2021; 53(3):611-620

2.

Durante M, Orecchia R, Loeffler JS. Charged-particle therapy in cancer: clinical uses and future perspectives. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017; 14(8):483-495

3.

Yun JE, Kim S, Park KY, Lee W. Effectiveness and safety of carbon ion radiotherapy in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Yonsei Med J 2024; 65(6):332-340

4.

Schulz-Ertner D, Nikoghosyan A, Jäkel O, Haberer T, Kraft G, Scholz M, et al. Feasibility and toxicity of combined photon and carbon ion radiotherapy for locally advanced adenoid cystic carcinomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56(2):391-398

5.

Mizoe J, Tsujii H, Kamada T, Matsuoka Y, Tsuji H, Osaka Y, et al. Dose escalation study of carbon ion radiotherapy for locally advanced head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 60(2):358-364

6.

Jensen AD, Nikoghosyan AV, Lossner K, Haberer T, Jäkel O, Münter MW, et al. COSMIC: a regimen of intensity modulated radiation therapy plus dose-escalated, raster-scanned carbon ion boost for malignant salivary gland tumors: results of the prospective phase 2 trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 93(1):37-46

7.

Jensen AD, Poulakis M, Nikoghosyan AV, Welzel T, Uhl M, Federspil PA, et al. High-LET radiotherapy for adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck: 15 years' experience with raster-scanned carbon ion therapy. Radiother Oncol 2016; 118(2):272-280

8.

Mizoe J, Hasegawa A, Jingu K, Takagi R, Bessyo H, Morikawa T, et al. Results of carbon ion radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2012; 103(1):32-37

9.

Sulaiman NS, Demizu Y, Koto M, Saitoh J, Suefuji H, Tsuji H, et al. Multicenter study of carbon-ion radiation therapy for adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck: subanalysis of the Japan carbon-ion radiation oncology study group (J-CROS) study (1402 HN). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 100(3):639-646

10.

Demizu Y, Fujii O, Terashima K, Mima M, Hashimoto N, Niwa Y, et al. Particle therapy for mucosal melanoma of the head and neck: a single-institution retrospective comparison of proton and carbon ion therapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2014; 190(2):186-191

11.

Vitolo V, Fossati P, Bonora M, Iannalfi A, Fiore MR, Vischioni V, et al. Malignant mucosal melanoma in the upper aerodigestive tract treated with carbon ion RT at CNAO: preliminary results. Radiother Oncol 2015; 115(1):S728

12.

Shirai K, Saitoh JI, Musha A, Abe T, Kobayashi D, Takayasu Y, et al. Hypofractionated carbon-ion radiation therapy for mucosal malignant melanoma in head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 99(2):E372

13.

Mohr A, Chaudhri N, Hassel JC, Federspil PA, Vanoni V, Debus J, et al. Raster-scanned intensity-controlled carbon ion therapy for mucosal melanoma of the paranasal sinus. Head Neck 2016; 38(S1):E1445-E1451

14.

Koto M, Demizu Y, Saitoh J, Suefuji H, Tsuji H, Okimoto T, et al. Multicenter study of carbon-ion radiation therapy for mucosal melanoma of the head and neck: subanalysis of the Japan carbon-ion radiation oncology study group (J-CROS) study (1402 HN). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 97(5):1054-1060

15.

Tsuji H, Ishikawa H, Yanagi T, Hirasawa N, Kamada T, Mizoe JE, et al. Carbon-ion radiotherapy for locally advanced or unfavorably located choroidal melanoma: a phase I/II dose-escalation study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 67(3):857-862

16.

Toyama S, Tsuji H, Mizoguchi N, Nomiya T, Kamada T, Tokumaru S, et al. Long-term results of carbon ion radiation therapy for locally advanced or unfavorably located choroidal melanoma: usefulness of CT-based 2-port orthogonal therapy for reducing the incidence of neovascular glaucoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 86(2):270-276

17.

Jingu K, Tsujii H, Mizoe JE, Hasegawa A, Bessho H, Takagi R, 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 Phys 2012; 82(5):2125-2131

18.

Musha A, Kubo N, Kawamura H, Okano N, Sato H, Okada K, et al. Carbon-ion radiotherapy for inoperable head and neck bone and soft-tissue sarcoma: prospective observational study. Anticancer Res 2022; 42(3):1439-1446

19.

Mendenhall WM, Morris CG, Amdur RJ, Werning JW, Villaret DB. Radiotherapy alone or combined with surgery for salivary gland carcinoma. Cancer 2005; 103(12):2544-2550

20.

Mercado CE, Holtzman AL, Rotondo R, Rutenberg MS, Mendenhall WM. Proton therapy for skull base tumors: a review of clinical outcomes for chordomas and chondrosarcomas. Head Neck 2019; 41(2):536-541

21.

Uhl M, Mattke M, Welzel T, Roeder F, Oelmann J, Habl G, et al. Highly effective treatment of skull base chordoma with carbon ion irradiation using a raster scan technique in 155 patients: first long-term results. Cancer 2014; 120(21):3410-3417

22.

Mattke M, Ohlinger M, Bougatf N, Harrabi S, Wolf R, Seidensaal K, et al. Proton and carbon ion beam treatment with active raster scanning method in 147 patients with skull base chordoma at the Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center: a single-center experience. Strahlenther Onkol 2023; 199(2):160-168

23.

Iannalfi A, D'Ippolito E, Riva G, Molinelli S, Gandini S, Viselner G, et al. Proton and carbon ion radiotherapy in skull base chordomas: a prospective study based on a dual particle and a patient-customized treatment strategy. Neuro-Oncology 2020; 22(9):1348-1358

24.

Schulz-Ertner D, Nikoghosyan A, Hof H, Didinger B, Combs SE, Jäkel O, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy of skull base chondrosarcomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 67(1):171-177

25.

Uhl M, Mattke M, Welzel T, Oelmann J, Habl G, Jensen AD, et al. High control rate in patients with chondrosarcoma of the skull base after carbon ion therapy: first report of long-term results. Cancer 2014; 120(10):1579-1585

26.

Mattke M, Vogt K, Bougatf N, Welzel T, Oelmann-Avendano J, Hauswald H, et al. High control rates of proton- and carbon-ion–beam treatment with intensity-modulated active raster scanning in 101 patients with skull base chondrosarcoma at the Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center. Cancer 2018; 124(9):2036-2044

27.

Kim E, Jang WI, Yang K, Kim MS, Yoo HJ, Paik EK, et al. Clinical utilization of radiation therapy in Korea between 2017 and 2019. Radiat Oncol J 2022; 40(4):251-259

28.

Miyamoto T, Yamamoto N, Nishimura H, Koto M, Tsujii H, Mizoe J, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2003; 66(2):127-140

29.

Miyamoto T, Baba M, Yamamoto N, Koto M, Sugawara T, Yashiro T, 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(3):750-758

30.

Miyamoto T, Baba M, Sugane T, Nakajima M, Yashiro T, Kagei K, 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(10):916-926

31.

Yamamoto N, Miyamoto T, Nakajima M, Karube M, Hayashi K, Tsuji H, et al. A dose escalation clinical trial of single-fraction carbon ion radiotherapy for peripheral stage I non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2017; 12(4):673-680

32.

Saitoh J, Shirai K, Mizukami T, Abe T, Ebara T, Ohno T, et al. Hypofractionated carbon-ion radiotherapy for stage I peripheral nonsmall cell lung cancer (GUNMA0701): prospective phase II study. Cancer Med 2019; 8(15):6644-6650

33.

Ono T, Yamamoto N, Nomoto A, Nakajima M, Isozaki Y, Kasuya G, et al. Long term results of single-fraction carbon-ion radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Cancers 2021; 13(1):112

34.

Kubo N, Suefuji H, Nakajima M, Tokumaru S, Okano N, Yoshida D, et al. Clinical results of carbon ion radiotherapy for inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a Japanese national registry study (J-CROS-LUNG). Radiother Oncol 2023; 183:109640

35.

Miyasaka Y, Komatsu S, Abe T, Kubo N, Okano N, Shibuya K, et al. Comparison of oncologic outcomes between carbon ion radiotherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Cancers 2021; 13(2):176

36.

Okazaki S, Shibuya K, Takura T, Miyasaka Y, Kawamura H, Ohno T. Cost-effectiveness of carbon-ion radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Sci 2022; 113(2):674-683

37.

Takahashi W, Nakajima M, Yamamoto N, Yamashita H, Nakagawa K, Miyamoto T, et al. A prospective nonrandomized phase I/II study of carbon ion radiotherapy in a favorable subset of locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Cancer 2015; 121(8):1321-1327

38.

Hayashi K, Yamamoto N, Nakajima M, Nomoto A, Tsuji H, Ogawa K, et al. Clinical outcomes of carbon-ion radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Sci 2019; 110(2):734-741

39.

Karube M, Yamamoto N, Shioyama Y, Saito J, Matsunobu A, Okimoto T, et al. Carbon-ion radiotherapy for patients with advanced stage non–small-cell lung cancer at multicenters. J Radiat Res 2017; 58(5):761-764

40.

Anzai M, Yamamoto N, Hayashi K, Nakajima M, Nomoto A, Ogawa K, et al. Safety and efficacy of carbon-ion radiotherapy alone for stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res 2020; 40(1):379-386

41.

Seo SH, Pyo H, Ahn YC, Oh D, Yang K, Kim N, et al. Pulmonary function and toxicities of proton versus photon for limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Radiat Oncol J 2023; 41(4):274-282

42.

Okano N, Kubo N, Yamaguchi K, Kouno S, Miyasaka Y, Mizukami T, et al. Efficacy and safety of carbon-ion radiotherapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer with coexisting interstitial lung disease. Cancers 2021; 13(16):4204

43.

Okano N, Suefuji H, Nakajima M, Tokumaru S, Kubo N, Yoshida D, et al. Clinical results of carbon-ion radiotherapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer with concomitant interstitial lung disease: a Japanese national registry study (J-CROS-LUNG). J Radiat Res 2023; 64(Supplement_1):i2-i7

44.

Kato H, Tsujii H, Miyamoto T, Mizoe J, Kamada T, Tsuji H, 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(5):1468-1476

45.

Kasuya G, Kato H, Yasuda S, Tsuji H, Yamada S, Haruyama Y, et al. Progressive hypofractionated carbon-ion radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: combined analyses of 2 prospective trials. Cancer 2017; 123(20):3955-3965

46.

Shibuya K, Katoh H, Koyama Y, Shiba S, Okamoto M, Okazaki S, et al. Efficacy and safety of 4 fractions of carbon-ion radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective study. Liver Cancer 2022; 11(1):61-74

47.

Shibuya K, Ohno T, Katoh H, Okamoto M, Shiba S, Koyama Y, et al. A feasibility study of high-dose hypofractionated carbon ion radiation therapy using four fractions for localized hepatocellular carcinoma measuring 3 cm or larger. Radiother Oncol 2019; 132:230-235

48.

Shibuya K, Ohno T, Terashima K, Toyama S, Yasuda S, Tsuji H, et al. Short-course carbon-ion radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multi-institutional retrospective study. Liver Int 2018; 38(12):2239-2247

49.

Shiba S, Abe T, Shibuya K, Katoh H, Koyama Y, Shimada H, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for 80 years or older patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Cancer 2017; 17(1):721

50.

Shiba S, Shibuya K, Katoh H, Kaminuma T, Miyazaki M, Kakizaki S, et al. A comparison of carbon ion radiotherapy and transarterial chemoembolization treatment outcomes for single hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching study. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14(1):137

51.

Shiba S, Shibuya K, Okamoto M, Okazaki S, Komatsu S, Kubota Y, et al. Clinical impact of hypofractionated carbon ion radiotherapy on locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15(1):195

52.

Tomizawa K, Shibuya K, Shiba S, Okazaki S, Miyasaka Y, Oishi M, et al. Repeated carbon-ion radiation therapy for intrahepatic recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 116(5):1100-1109

53.

Fujita N, Kanogawa N, Makishima H, Ogasawara S, Maruta S, Iino Y, et al. Carbon-ion radiotherapy versus radiofrequency ablation as initial treatment for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Res 2022; 52(12):1060-1071

54.

Komatsu S, Fukumoto T, Demizu Y, Miyawaki D, Terashima K, Sasaki R, et al. Clinical results and risk factors of proton and carbon ion therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 2011; 117(21):4890-4904

55.

Hiroshima Y, Wakatsuki M, Kaneko T, Makishima H, Okada NN, Yasuda S, et al. Clinical impact of carbon-ion radiotherapy on hepatocellular carcinoma with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. Cancer Med 2023; 12(13):14004-14014

56.

Imada H, Kato H, Yasuda S, Yamada S, Yanagi T, Kishimoto R, 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(2):231-235

57.

Okazaki S, Shibuya K, Shiba S, Okamoto M, Miyasaka Y, Osu N, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the caudate lobe carbon ion radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma in caudate lobe. Hepatol Res 2021; 51(3):303-312

58.

Charalampopoulou A, Barcellini A, Ciocca M, Di Liberto R, Pasi F, Pullia MG, et al. Factors released by low and high-LET irradiated fibroblasts modulate migration and invasiveness of pancreatic cancer cells. Front Oncol 2022; 12:1003494

59.

Facoetti A, Di Gioia C, Pasi F, Di Liberto R, Corbella F, Nano R, et al. Morphological analysis of amoeboid–mesenchymal transition plasticity after low and high LET radiation on migrating and invading pancreatic cancer cells. Anticancer Res 2018; 38(8):4585-4591

60.

Shinoto M, Yamada S, Terashima K, Yasuda S, Shioyama Y, Honda H, et al. Carbon ion radiation therapy with concurrent gemcitabine for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95(1):498-504

61.

Kawashiro S, Yamada S, Okamoto M, Ohno T, Nakano T, Shinoto M, et al. Multi-institutional study of carbon-ion radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: Japan carbon-ion radiation oncology study group (J-CROS) study 1403 pancreas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 101(5):1212-1221

62.

Okamoto M, Shiba S, Kobayashi D, Miyasaka Y, Okazaki S, Shibuya K, et al. Carbon-ion radiotherapy combined with concurrent chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a retrospective case series analysis. Cancers 2023; 15(10):2857

63.

Shinoto M, Yamada S, Yasuda S, Imada H, Shioyama Y, Honda H, et al. Phase 1 trial of preoperative, short-course carbon-ion radiotherapy for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Cancer 2013; 119(1):45-51

64.

Ebner DK, Shinoto M, Kawashiro S, Isozaki Y, Kamada T, Yamada S. Phase 1/2 trial of preoperative short-course carbon-ion radiation therapy for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 99(2):S144

65.

Vitolo V, Cobianchi L, Brugnatelli S, Barcellini A, Peloso A, Facoetti A, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy and carbon ions therapy for treatment of resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a prospective, phase II. multicentre, single-arm study. BMC Cancer 2019; 19(1):922

66.

Yadav BS, Gupta S, Dahiya D, Gupta A, Oinam AS. Accelerated hypofractionated breast radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost: a feasibility study. Radiat Oncol J 2022; 40(2):127-140

67.

Kim N, Kim YB. Journey to hypofractionation in radiotherapy for breast cancer: critical reviews for recent updates. Radiat Oncol J 2022; 40(4):216-224

68.

Nanos C, Souftas V, Zissimopoulos A, Koukourakis MI. Radiobiological analysis of preliminary results of a phase II study of pelvic hypofractionated and accelerated radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer patients. Radiat Oncol J 2022; 40(2):151-161

69.

Ishikawa H, Tsuji H, Kamada T, Akakura K, Suzuki H, Shimazaki J, et al. Carbon-ion radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2012; 19(4):296-305

70.

Akakura K, Tsujii H, Morita S, Tsuji H, Yagishita T, Isaka S, et al. Phase I/II clinical trials of carbon ion therapy for prostate cancer. Prostate 2004; 58(3):252-258

71.

Tsuji H, Yanagi T, Ishikawa H, Kamada T, Mizoe J, Kanai T, et al. Hypofractionated radiotherapy with carbon ion beams for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 63(4):1153-1160

72.

Ishikawa H, Tsuji H, Kamada T, Yanagi T, Mizoe JE, Kanai T, et al. Carbon ion radiation therapy for prostate cancer: results of a prospective phase II study. Radiother Oncol 2006; 81(1):57-64

73.

Okada T, Tsuji H, Kamada T, Akakura K, Suzuki H, Shimazaki J, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy in advanced hypofractionated regimens for prostate cancer: from 20 to 16 fractions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 84(4):968-972

74.

Nomiya T, Tsuji H, Maruyama K, Toyama S, Suzuki H, Akakura K, et al. Phase I/II trial of definitive carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer: evaluation of shortening of treatment period to 3 weeks. Br J Cancer 2014; 110(10):2389-2395

75.

Nomiya T, Tsuji H, Kawamura H, Ohno T, Toyama S, Shioyama Y, et al. A multi-institutional analysis of prospective studies of carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a report from the Japan Carbon ion Radiation Oncology Study Group (J-CROS). Radiother Oncol 2016; 121(2):288-293

76.

Habl G, Uhl M, Katayama S, Kessel KA, Hatiboglu G, Hadaschik B, et al. Acute toxicity and quality of life in patients with prostate cancer treated with protons or carbon ions in a prospective randomized phase II study—the IPI trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95(1):435-443

77.

Marvaso G, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Vischioni B, Ciardo D, Giandini T, Hasegawa A, et al. Phase II multi-institutional clinical trial on a new mixed beam RT scheme of IMRT on pelvis combined with a carbon ion boost for high-risk prostate cancer patients. Tumori J 2017; 103(3):314-318

78.

Marvaso G, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Riva G, Bassi C, Fodor C, Ciardo D, et al. High-risk prostate cancer and radiotherapy: the past and the future. A benchmark for a new mixed beam radiotherapy approach. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017; 15(3):376-383

79.

Zhang Y, Li P, Yu Q, Wu S, Chen X, Zhang Q, et al. Preliminary exploration of clinical factors affecting acute toxicity and quality of life after carbon ion therapy for prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14(1):94

80.

Maruyama K, Tsuji H, Nomiya T, Katoh H, Ishikawa H, Kamada T, et al. Five-year quality of life assessment after carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Radiat Res 2017; 58(2):260-266

81.

Imai R, Kamada T, Araki N, Working Group for Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas. Carbon ion radiation therapy for unresectable sacral chordoma: an analysis of 188 cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95(1):322-327

82.

Imai R, Kamada T, Araki N, The Working Group for Bone and Soft-Tissue Sarcomas. Clinical efficacy of carbon ion radiotherapy for unresectable chondrosarcomas. Anticancer Res 2017; 37(12):6959-6964

83.

Wu S, Li P, Cai X, Hong Z, Yu Z, Zhang Q, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for patients with extracranial chordoma or chondrosarcoma - initial experience from Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center. J Cancer 2019; 10(15):3315-3322

84.

Bostel T, Mattke M, Nicolay NH, Welzel T, Wollschläger D, Akbaba S, et al. High-dose carbon-ion based radiotherapy of primary and recurrent sacrococcygeal chordomas: long-term clinical results of a single particle therapy center. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15(1):206

85.

Shiba S, Okamoto M, Kiyohara H, Okazaki S, Kaminuma T, Shibuya K, et al. Impact of carbon ion radiotherapy on inoperable bone sarcoma. Cancers 2021; 13(5):1099

86.

Matsunobu A, Imai R, Kamada T, Imaizumi T, Tsuji H, Tsujii H, et al. Impact of carbon ion radiotherapy for unresectable osteosarcoma of the trunk. Cancer 2012; 118(18):4555-4563

87.

Matsumoto K, Imai R, Kamada T, Maruyama K, Tsuji H, Tsujii H, et al. Impact of carbon ion radiotherapy for primary spinal sarcoma. Cancer 2013; 119(19):3496-3503

88.

Sugahara S, Kamada T, Imai R, Tsuji H, Kameda N, Okada T, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for localized primary sarcoma of the extremities: results of a phase I/II trial. Radiother Oncol 2012; 105(2):226-231

89.

Mohamad O, Imai R, Kamada T, Nitta Y, Araki N, the Working Group for Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcoma. Carbon ion radiotherapy for inoperable pediatric osteosarcoma. Oncotarget 2018; 9(33):22976-22985

90.

Combs SE, Nikoghosyan A, Jaekel O, Karger CP, Haberer T, Munter MW, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for pediatric patients and young adults treated for tumors of the skull base. Cancer 2009; 115(6):1348-1355

91.

Serizawa I, Kagei K, Kamada T, Imai R, Sugahara S, Okada T, et al. Carbon ion radiotherapy for unresectable retroperitoneal sarcomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 75(4):1105-1110

92.

Imai R, Kamada T, Araki N, Working Group for Carbon Ion Radiotherapy for Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas. Carbon ion radiotherapy for unresectable localized axial soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer Med 2018; 7(9):4308-4314

93.

Shiba S, Okamoto M, Tashiro M, Ogawa H, Osone K, Yanagawa T, et al. Rectal dose-sparing effect with bioabsorbable spacer placement in carbon ion radiotherapy for sacral chordoma: dosimetric comparison of a simulation study. J Radiat Res 2021; 62(3):549-555

94.

Sasaki R, Demizu Y, Yamashita T, Komatsu S, Akasaka H, Miyawaki D, et al. First-in-human phase 1 study of a nonwoven fabric bioabsorbable spacer for particle therapy: space-making particle therapy (SMPT). Adv Radiat Oncol 2019; 4(4):729-737