OP157 Carbon Ion Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 20192019Cambridge University PressIntroductionDue to the promising physical dose distribution of carbon ion radiation therapy (CIRT), CIRT can be regarded as a novel tumor irradiation technique and is sometimes considered as a breakthrough therapy for various t...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of technology assessment in health care 2019, Vol.35 (S1), p.34-35 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 35 |
---|---|
container_issue | S1 |
container_start_page | 34 |
container_title | International journal of technology assessment in health care |
container_volume | 35 |
creator | Goetz, Gregor Mitić, Marija Mittermayr, Tarquin Wild, Claudia |
description | Copyright © Cambridge University Press 20192019Cambridge University PressIntroductionDue to the promising physical dose distribution of carbon ion radiation therapy (CIRT), CIRT can be regarded as a novel tumor irradiation technique and is sometimes considered as a breakthrough therapy for various tumor types. However, it is unclear whether superiority or inferiority can be claimed when compared to standard irradiation. This study aimed to assess the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of CIRT.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted using the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Core Model® for rapid relative effectiveness assessment. The literature search for clinical outcome studies on CIRT was performed in four databases [Cochrane (Central), Centre for Research and Dissemination (CRD), Embase and OVID MEDLINE]. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (for randomized controlled trials) and the Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Checklist (for observational studies). The evidence synthesis was restricted to 12 tumor regions (and 54 indications) and studies with a low or moderate risk of bias, published between 2005 and 2017.ResultsIn total 27 studies were eligible for the qualitative synthesis of the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of CIRT; one randomized controlled trial that primarily focused on the feasibility of CIRT, three case-control studies, three before-after studies focusing on quality of life, and 20 further case series studies. Overall, insufficient scientific evidence was found for 13 (out of 54) indications in seven tumor regions and no scientific evidence was found for 41 (out of 54) indications.ConclusionsTheoretically, CIRT is undoubtedly a promising cancer treatment. To date, however, 54 oncologic indications in 12 tumor regions under investigation lack randomized controlled trials assessing the long-term effectiveness and harms associated with its use. CIRT must be considered as an experimental treatment due to the lack of high-quality clinical research. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0266462319001740 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2331307144</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2331307144</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c704-e76cb53c8ded4ee416dd05faacee47c1d3aa1eb8cb9b7db0d5c8c78d29a6504c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkE9Lw0AQxRdRMFY_gLeA5-hMdrObeCtBa6FQaXtf9l8wxTZxN1Xy7d1Qbx6G4fF-zDweIfcIjwgonraQc854TrGCqBlckASZwIxTVl6SZLKzyb8mNyHsI0OhgoTk63csRForr7tjuoyzUbbthg_nVT8-p_N0O4bBHdTQmnTjvlv3c0uuGvUZ3N3fnpHd68uufstW68Wynq8yI4BlTnCjC2pK6yxzjiG3FopGKROFMGipUuh0aXSlhdVgC1MaUdq8UrwAZuiMPJzP9r77OrkwyH138sf4UeaUxvgCGYsUninjuxC8a2Tv24Pyo0SQUzPyXzP0F22LVJw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2331307144</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>OP157 Carbon Ion Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review</title><source>Cambridge Journals</source><creator>Goetz, Gregor ; Mitić, Marija ; Mittermayr, Tarquin ; Wild, Claudia</creator><creatorcontrib>Goetz, Gregor ; Mitić, Marija ; Mittermayr, Tarquin ; Wild, Claudia</creatorcontrib><description>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 20192019Cambridge University PressIntroductionDue to the promising physical dose distribution of carbon ion radiation therapy (CIRT), CIRT can be regarded as a novel tumor irradiation technique and is sometimes considered as a breakthrough therapy for various tumor types. However, it is unclear whether superiority or inferiority can be claimed when compared to standard irradiation. This study aimed to assess the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of CIRT.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted using the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Core Model® for rapid relative effectiveness assessment. The literature search for clinical outcome studies on CIRT was performed in four databases [Cochrane (Central), Centre for Research and Dissemination (CRD), Embase and OVID MEDLINE]. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (for randomized controlled trials) and the Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Checklist (for observational studies). The evidence synthesis was restricted to 12 tumor regions (and 54 indications) and studies with a low or moderate risk of bias, published between 2005 and 2017.ResultsIn total 27 studies were eligible for the qualitative synthesis of the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of CIRT; one randomized controlled trial that primarily focused on the feasibility of CIRT, three case-control studies, three before-after studies focusing on quality of life, and 20 further case series studies. Overall, insufficient scientific evidence was found for 13 (out of 54) indications in seven tumor regions and no scientific evidence was found for 41 (out of 54) indications.ConclusionsTheoretically, CIRT is undoubtedly a promising cancer treatment. To date, however, 54 oncologic indications in 12 tumor regions under investigation lack randomized controlled trials assessing the long-term effectiveness and harms associated with its use. CIRT must be considered as an experimental treatment due to the lack of high-quality clinical research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-4623</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-6348</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0266462319001740</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Bias ; Carbon ; Clinical trials ; Irradiation ; Literature reviews ; Quality of life ; Radiation ; Radiation therapy ; Randomization ; Risk assessment ; Safety ; Synthesis ; Systematic review ; Technology assessment ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2019, Vol.35 (S1), p.34-35</ispartof><rights>Copyright Cambridge University Press 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,4012,27910,27911,27912</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Goetz, Gregor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitić, Marija</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mittermayr, Tarquin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wild, Claudia</creatorcontrib><title>OP157 Carbon Ion Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review</title><title>International journal of technology assessment in health care</title><description>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 20192019Cambridge University PressIntroductionDue to the promising physical dose distribution of carbon ion radiation therapy (CIRT), CIRT can be regarded as a novel tumor irradiation technique and is sometimes considered as a breakthrough therapy for various tumor types. However, it is unclear whether superiority or inferiority can be claimed when compared to standard irradiation. This study aimed to assess the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of CIRT.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted using the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Core Model® for rapid relative effectiveness assessment. The literature search for clinical outcome studies on CIRT was performed in four databases [Cochrane (Central), Centre for Research and Dissemination (CRD), Embase and OVID MEDLINE]. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (for randomized controlled trials) and the Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Checklist (for observational studies). The evidence synthesis was restricted to 12 tumor regions (and 54 indications) and studies with a low or moderate risk of bias, published between 2005 and 2017.ResultsIn total 27 studies were eligible for the qualitative synthesis of the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of CIRT; one randomized controlled trial that primarily focused on the feasibility of CIRT, three case-control studies, three before-after studies focusing on quality of life, and 20 further case series studies. Overall, insufficient scientific evidence was found for 13 (out of 54) indications in seven tumor regions and no scientific evidence was found for 41 (out of 54) indications.ConclusionsTheoretically, CIRT is undoubtedly a promising cancer treatment. To date, however, 54 oncologic indications in 12 tumor regions under investigation lack randomized controlled trials assessing the long-term effectiveness and harms associated with its use. CIRT must be considered as an experimental treatment due to the lack of high-quality clinical research.</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Carbon</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Irradiation</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>Randomization</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Synthesis</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Technology assessment</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0266-4623</issn><issn>1471-6348</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNplkE9Lw0AQxRdRMFY_gLeA5-hMdrObeCtBa6FQaXtf9l8wxTZxN1Xy7d1Qbx6G4fF-zDweIfcIjwgonraQc854TrGCqBlckASZwIxTVl6SZLKzyb8mNyHsI0OhgoTk63csRForr7tjuoyzUbbthg_nVT8-p_N0O4bBHdTQmnTjvlv3c0uuGvUZ3N3fnpHd68uufstW68Wynq8yI4BlTnCjC2pK6yxzjiG3FopGKROFMGipUuh0aXSlhdVgC1MaUdq8UrwAZuiMPJzP9r77OrkwyH138sf4UeaUxvgCGYsUninjuxC8a2Tv24Pyo0SQUzPyXzP0F22LVJw</recordid><startdate>2019</startdate><enddate>2019</enddate><creator>Goetz, Gregor</creator><creator>Mitić, Marija</creator><creator>Mittermayr, Tarquin</creator><creator>Wild, Claudia</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2019</creationdate><title>OP157 Carbon Ion Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review</title><author>Goetz, Gregor ; Mitić, Marija ; Mittermayr, Tarquin ; Wild, Claudia</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c704-e76cb53c8ded4ee416dd05faacee47c1d3aa1eb8cb9b7db0d5c8c78d29a6504c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Carbon</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Irradiation</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>Randomization</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Synthesis</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Technology assessment</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Goetz, Gregor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitić, Marija</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mittermayr, Tarquin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wild, Claudia</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Goetz, Gregor</au><au>Mitić, Marija</au><au>Mittermayr, Tarquin</au><au>Wild, Claudia</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>OP157 Carbon Ion Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review</atitle><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle><date>2019</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>S1</issue><spage>34</spage><epage>35</epage><pages>34-35</pages><issn>0266-4623</issn><eissn>1471-6348</eissn><abstract>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 20192019Cambridge University PressIntroductionDue to the promising physical dose distribution of carbon ion radiation therapy (CIRT), CIRT can be regarded as a novel tumor irradiation technique and is sometimes considered as a breakthrough therapy for various tumor types. However, it is unclear whether superiority or inferiority can be claimed when compared to standard irradiation. This study aimed to assess the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of CIRT.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted using the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Core Model® for rapid relative effectiveness assessment. The literature search for clinical outcome studies on CIRT was performed in four databases [Cochrane (Central), Centre for Research and Dissemination (CRD), Embase and OVID MEDLINE]. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (for randomized controlled trials) and the Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Checklist (for observational studies). The evidence synthesis was restricted to 12 tumor regions (and 54 indications) and studies with a low or moderate risk of bias, published between 2005 and 2017.ResultsIn total 27 studies were eligible for the qualitative synthesis of the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of CIRT; one randomized controlled trial that primarily focused on the feasibility of CIRT, three case-control studies, three before-after studies focusing on quality of life, and 20 further case series studies. Overall, insufficient scientific evidence was found for 13 (out of 54) indications in seven tumor regions and no scientific evidence was found for 41 (out of 54) indications.ConclusionsTheoretically, CIRT is undoubtedly a promising cancer treatment. To date, however, 54 oncologic indications in 12 tumor regions under investigation lack randomized controlled trials assessing the long-term effectiveness and harms associated with its use. CIRT must be considered as an experimental treatment due to the lack of high-quality clinical research.</abstract><cop>Cambridge</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0266462319001740</doi><tpages>2</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0266-4623 |
ispartof | International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2019, Vol.35 (S1), p.34-35 |
issn | 0266-4623 1471-6348 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2331307144 |
source | Cambridge Journals |
subjects | Bias Carbon Clinical trials Irradiation Literature reviews Quality of life Radiation Radiation therapy Randomization Risk assessment Safety Synthesis Systematic review Technology assessment Tumors |
title | OP157 Carbon Ion Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T18%3A44%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=OP157%20Carbon%20Ion%20Radiotherapy:%20A%20Systematic%20Review&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20technology%20assessment%20in%20health%20care&rft.au=Goetz,%20Gregor&rft.date=2019&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=34&rft.epage=35&rft.pages=34-35&rft.issn=0266-4623&rft.eissn=1471-6348&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0266462319001740&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2331307144%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2331307144&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |