MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Scopus electronic databases to identify original studies reporting toxicity outcomes following PBT of primary NPC. Quality assessment was performed using NIH's Quality Assessment Tool. Reports were extracted for information on demographics, main results, and clinical and dose factors correlates. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model.
RESULTS: Twelve studies were selected (six using mixed particle-photon beams, five performed comparisons to photon-based therapy). The pooled event rates for acute grade ≥2 toxicities mucositis, dermatitis, xerostomia weight loss are 46% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]-29%-64%, I2 = 87%), 47% (95% CI-28%-67%, I2 = 87%), 16% (95% CI-9%-29%, I2 = 76%), and 36% (95% CI-27%-47%, I2 = 45%), respectively. Only one late endpoint (xerostomia grade ≥2) has sufficient data for analysis with pooled event rate of 9% (95% CI-3%-29%, I2 = 77%), lower than intensity-modulated radiotherapy 27% (95% CI-10%-54%, I2 = 95%). For most endpoints with significant differences between the PBT and photon-based therapies, PBT resulted in better outcomes. In two studies where dose distribution was studied, doses to the organs at risk were independent risk factors for toxicities.
CONCLUSION: PBT may reduce the risk of acute toxicities for patients treated for primary NPC, likely due to dose reduction to critical structures. The pooled event rate for toxicities derived in this study can be a guide for patient counseling.
METHODS: Five APT quantification methods, including asymmetry analysis and its variants as well as two Lorentzian model-based methods, were applied to data acquired from six rats that underwent middle cerebral artery occlusion scanned at 9.4T. Diffusion and perfusion-weighted images, and water relaxation time maps were also acquired to study the relationship of these conventional imaging modalities with the different APT quantification methods.
RESULTS: The APT ischemic area estimates had varying sizes (Jaccard index: 0.544 ≤ J ≤ 0.971) and had varying correlations in their distributions (Pearson correlation coefficient: 0.104 ≤ r ≤ 0.995), revealing discrepancies in the quantified ischemic areas. The Lorentzian methods produced the highest contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs; 1.427 ≤ CNR ≤ 2.002), but generated APT ischemic areas that were comparable in size to the cerebral blood flow (CBF) deficit areas; asymmetry analysis and its variants produced APT ischemic areas that were smaller than the CBF deficit areas but larger than the apparent diffusion coefficient deficit areas, though having lower CNRs (0.561 ≤ CNR ≤ 1.083).
CONCLUSION: There is a need to further investigate the accuracy and correlation of each quantification method with the pathophysiology using a larger scale multi-imaging modality and multi-time-point clinical study. Future studies should include the magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry results alongside the findings of the study to facilitate the comparison of results between different centers and also the published literature.