Skip to main content

High-Dose Carbon Ion Reirradiation for Recurrent Pelvic Sarcomas: A Retrospective Analysis of Oncologic Outcomes in a Referral Center

Journal
Advances in radiation oncology (Q1)
Published
10 July 2026
Study design
Cohort / observational study
Evidence level
Level 3, Low (CEBM 3b)
Authors
Agnieszka Chalaszczyk, Elettra Dorotea Ferrari, Marco Rotondi, Silvia Molinelli, Amelia Barcellini, Viviana Vitolo, et al.
PMID
42630842
DOI
10.1016/j.adro.2026.102137

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of high-dose carbon ion reirradiation (CIR) in patients with recurrent pelvic sarcomas. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective study included 46 patients treated with high-dose CIR for locoregional recurrences of pelvic sarcomas between 2013 and 2023 at the National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy, Pavia, Italy. Clinical outcomes, toxicity, and cumulative doses were analyzed. RESULTS: The median prescribed total dose of CIR was 60 GyRBE (range, 45-73.6 GyRBE). The maximum cumulative equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions to the target volume reached 284 Gy, with a median of 153 Gy. The median follow-up was 32.5 months. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year locoregional progression-free survival rates were 79.1%, 43.9%, and 25.1%, respectively, with a mean time to locoregional relapse of 18.9 months. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates were 100%, 93.9%, and 83.1%, respectively. At last follow-up, grade 3 neuropathy occurred in 6.5% of the patients, grade 3 anorectal dysfunction in 8.7%, and grade 3 skin toxicity in 6.5%. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose CIR is a feasible salvage strategy for recurrent pelvic sarcoma, offering promising outcomes and manageable toxicity in carefully selected patients. Prospective studies are warranted to refine dose-response models and validate long-term efficacy.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.