Brief Note on Carbon-Ion Radiotherapy

Journal of Health & Medical Informatics

ISSN: 2157-7420

Open Access

Perspective - (2022) Volume 13, Issue 6

Brief Note on Carbon-Ion Radiotherapy

Hitoshi Ishikawa*
*Correspondence: Hitoshi Ishikawa, Department of Medicine, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan, Tel: +9234319844, Email:
Department of Medicine, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan

Received: 05-Jun-2022, Manuscript No. JHMI-22-72492; Editor assigned: 07-Jun-2022, Pre QC No. P-72492; Reviewed: 10-Jun-2022, QC No. Q-72492; Revised: 15-Jun-2022, Manuscript No. R-72492; Published: 20-Jun-2022 , DOI: 10.37421/2157-7420.2022.13.423
Citation: Ishikawa, Hitoshi. “Brief Note on Carbon-Ion Radiotherapy.” J Health Med Informat 13 (2022): 423.
Copyright: © 2022 Ishikawa H. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


Carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) is a high-dose serious treatment, whose security and adequacy have been demonstrated for prostate malignant growth. In Japan, the occurrence of prostate disease has expanded as of late, somewhat due to the ubiquity of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening; the announced frequency was 92,021 out of 2018, making it the most ordinarily analyzed disease, outperforming stomach, colorectal, and cellular breakdowns in the lungs [1].


The occurrence rate expanded with age, with 23.3 cases per 100,000 people in the 50-54 age years bunch and 75.1 cases in the 55-59 age years bunch, with an especially sharp expansion in those matured 60 and over, and a high pace of around 650 cases in those matured 75 and over. Then again, the decrease in the presentation status (PS) and exercises of everyday living (ADLs) in older people preceding treatment frequently makes medical care suppliers, patients, and their families reluctant to think about healing therapy indeed, even after the finding of threat [2].

There are two kinds of therapy for prostate disease: therapeudic and noncurative. For the old, androgen hardship treatment (ADT) might be picked as noncurative treatment in view of the anticipated forecast. Notwithstanding, with the expansion in future, prostate malignant growth might become impervious to mutilation and, advance and metastasize before death from different infections. Specifically, prostate disease is known to metastasize to bones, and bone cracks in the older individuals have been accounted for to diminish visualization as well as personal satisfaction. Against this foundation, insignificantly intrusive therapeudic treatment that can be gone through by the old is wanted [3].

The two chief sorts of remedial therapy for limited prostate disease are medical procedure and radiotherapy. The utilization of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has become broader, while the accuracy of radiotherapy, particularly external-shaft radiotherapy (EBRT), has expanded with the advancement of image-guided radiotherapy. Notwithstanding, radiotherapy in the old is described by a more prominent probability of decay in the personal satisfaction influencing the exhibition of everyday exercises, particularly during long treatment periods, which is exacerbated by antagonistic occasions, like continuous pee during treatment and hematuria and hematochezia after treatment [4].

CIRT has been utilized for the therapy of prostate disease beginning around 1995. Albeit the past investigations have provided details regarding the treatment results and poisonousness, none have centered on old patients. Thusly, this study plans to evaluate and report the results also, poisonousness of CIRT for prostate malignant growth in patients matured 75 years and more established, contrasted with those in their more youthful partners [5].


In the real-world clinical setting, more youthful patients might be prepared for extremist treatment, while older patients are frequently reluctant due to worries about deteriorating of the general condition and unfriendly occasions after treatment, which may deter medical care suppliers, the patient, and relatives from continuing with treatment. In this specific circumstance, rules and reports have been contrived for old disease patients. The normal longings restricting all patients are the wish to finish the treatment in as short a period as conceivable with high accuracy, and in a couple of days as could be expected, particularly for older patients. In such manner, CIRT is viewed as a guidelineconsistent treatment, which offers exceptionally exact actual portion dispersion and considers hypo fractionation. Further headways in hypo fractionation in the future might empower significantly older patient-friendly treatment.


  1. Popescu, Tiberiu, Ulf Karlsson, Vincent Vinh-Hung and Lurdes Trigo, et al. “Challenges facing radiation oncologists in the management of older cancer patients: consensus of the international geriatric radiotherapy group.” Cancers 11 (2019):371.
  2. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  3. Mottet, Nicolas, Joaquim Bellmunt, Michel Bolla and Erik Briers, et al. “Eau-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on Prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent.” Eur Urol 71 (2017): 618–629.
  4. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  5. VanderWalde, Noam, Reshma Jagsi, Efrat Dotan and Joel Baumgartner, et al. “NCCN guidelines insights: Older adult oncology, Version 2.2016.” J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 14 (2016): 1357–1370.
  6. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  7. Lavallée, Luke T., Ryan McLarty, Christopher Tran and Rodney H. Breau, et al. “Canadian Urologic Association best practice report: Bone health in prostate cancer.” Can Urol Assoc J 15 (2021): 375–382.
  8. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  9. Von Friesendorff, M., F.E. McGuigan, A. Wizert and C. Rogmark, et al. “Hip fracture, mortality risk, and cause of death over two decades.” Osteoporos Int 27 (2016): 2945–2953.
  10. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

Google Scholar citation report
Citations: 2128

Journal of Health & Medical Informatics received 2128 citations as per Google Scholar report

Journal of Health & Medical Informatics peer review process verified at publons

Indexed In

arrow_upward arrow_upward