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
- Picked for Radiology, Radiation Oncology, Nuclear Medicine, Medical Physics and Imaging (paper of the day, 27 August 2026): High‑dose carbon ion reirradiation shows safety and efficacy
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.
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.