中华放射医学与防护杂志  2026, Vol. 46 Issue (4): 427-431   PDF    
放疗引起的淋巴细胞减少症的预测与预防进展
郑思思1 , 夏彤2 , 蔡尚1,3 , 单秋洁4 , 田野2,3     
1. 苏州大学附属第二医院布拉格治疗中心, 苏州 215004;
2. 苏州大学附属第二医院放疗科, 苏州 215004;
3. 放射医学与辐射防护国家重点实验室(苏州大学), 苏州 215123;
4. 江苏省淮安市第五人民医院放疗科, 淮安 223300
[摘要] 放疗引起的淋巴细胞减少症是实体肿瘤放射治疗中的常见并发症, 严重淋巴细胞减少症常影响抗肿瘤治疗疗效并预示着不良的生存结局。淋巴细胞检测时机直接影响放疗诱发淋巴细胞减少症的风险评估与预后判断的准确性。通过循环血液剂量学模型和人工智能模型有望精准预测放疗引起的淋巴细胞减少症发生风险。限制免疫危及器官的受照射剂量体积, 采用质子、碳离子治疗等先进放疗设备, 以及应用超高剂量率放疗技术, 可有效降低放疗引起的淋巴细胞减少症的风险, 为改善恶性肿瘤患者预后提供有效手段。
[关键词] 放射治疗    淋巴细胞减少症    预测模型    预防策略    
Advances in the prediction and prevention of radiation-induced lymphopenia
Zheng Sisi1 , Xia Tong2 , Cai Shang1,3 , Shan Qiujie4 , Tian Ye2,3     
1. Treatment Center of PRaG, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215004, China;
2. Department of Radiotherapy & Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215004, China;
3. State Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection (Soochow University), Suzhou 215123, China;
4. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Fifth People's Hospital of Huai'an, Huai'an 223300, China
[Abstract] Radiation-induced lymphopenia (RIL) represents a common complication in radiotherapy for solid tumors. Severe RIL adversely affects the treatment efficacy of tumors and portends poor survival outcomes. The timing of lymphocyte tests directly influences the accuracy of risk assessment and prognostic evaluation for RIL. The precise prediction of RIL risk is expected to be achieved using predictive models, including circulating blood-related dosimetric models and artificial intelligence (AI) models. The RIL risks can be effectively reduced by employing strategies such as limiting the radiation dose-volume to lymphocyte-related organs at risk (LOARs), using advanced radiotherapy equipment for proton and carbon ion therapy, and applying ultra-high dose rate radiotherapy (UHDR-RT). These strategies serve as effective means to improve the prognosis of patients with malignant tumors.
[Key words] Radiotherapy    Lymphopenia    Prediction model    Prevention strategy    

放射治疗作为抗肿瘤治疗的常用手段之一,不可避免会在治疗中对正常组织造成急性或慢性损伤。淋巴细胞具有高度放射敏感性,接受低剂量2 Gy照射即可导致50%淋巴细胞死亡[1]。在照射靠近骨髓、脾脏等淋巴器官的肿瘤或血液中的淋巴细胞时,会导致循环淋巴细胞减少[2]。近年来,免疫检查点抑制剂的应用显著提升了肿瘤患者的疾病控制率和生存率。免疫治疗主要通过激活抗肿瘤淋巴细胞(如细胞毒性CD8+T细胞)活化并抑制促肿瘤淋巴细胞(如调节性CD4+T细胞)来发挥抗肿瘤效应,放疗引起的淋巴细胞减少症(radiation-induced lymphopenia, RIL)可能降低细胞毒性CD8+ T淋巴细胞和CD4+辅助T淋巴细胞的数量而影响抗肿瘤疗效[3],已成为实体肿瘤放疗后的常见并发症,显著影响患者的预后生存[4-5]。如何预测与预防RIL成为目前的研究热点,本文就其临床进展进行论述。

一、RIL的评估及对预后的影响

RIL定义为放疗后每微升或立方毫米血液中淋巴细胞绝对计数(absolute lymphocyte count, ALC)低于正常限值。RIL的评估指标主要根据美国卫生及公共服务部发布的常见不良反应事件评价标准(CTCAE)进行严重程度分级,其他评估方式包括放疗期间ALC最低值,中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值等[6]。RIL的评估受ALC检测时间节点影响,其可分为时间点评估(在放疗期间或放疗后任意单次时间点检测ALC)和时间段评估(在放疗开始至结束后特定时间段内检测ALC最低值)。Saeed等[7]发现采用时间点与时间段指标评估脑胶质瘤患者的RIL发生率分别为11.8%和39.9%;预后生存评估也存在显著差异。一项大型食管癌研究发现,在同步放化疗第3周时间点检测的ALC是预测患者无进展生存(progression-free survival, PFS)和总生存(overall survival, OS)的独立因素,其预测价值优于时间段检测的4级RIL指标和ALC最低值指标[6]。因此,ALC检测时间节点不同可能影响实体肿瘤中RIL发生风险的评估与预后生存的比较,需进一步前瞻性研究确定最佳检测时机。

目前已在多种实体瘤研究中证实,严重RIL(通常指3~4级RIL)与肿瘤患者预后存在显著负相关(HR=1.65,95%CI:1.43~1.90)[4]。非小细胞肺癌患者放疗后1个月,3~4级RIL发生率为45%~60%,严重RIL患者中位PFS较非严重RIL患者缩短7个月,OS缩短20个月[4]。而胰腺癌患者放疗后3~4级RIL发生率为27%~45%,严重RIL与OS下降显著相关(HR=1.92,95%CI:1.10~3.36)[4]。局部晚期宫颈癌的研究结果也显示,同步放化疗期间4级急性RIL发生率为29.4%,发生4级RIL患者的5年OS较非4级患者均显著下降44%[8]。不同瘤种中出现严重RIL均会影响患者预后。此外,放疗后急性淋巴细胞减少恢复延迟及慢性淋巴细胞减少与不良预后相关。食管癌根治性放疗后6个月,44.8%的患者ALC恢复至正常水平,4级RIL恢复者5年OS较未恢复者高35%,1~3级RIL恢复者5年OS高15%[9]。另一项食管癌研究得到相似结果,放疗后3个月ALC恢复至基线水平的食管癌患者中位OS达22个月,较恢复延迟者长7.5个月;PFS亦呈现相似差异(12.4 vs. 8.4个月,P=0.021)[10]。因此,急性严重RIL、放疗后淋巴细胞恢复延迟及慢性淋巴细胞减少可能影响恶性肿瘤患者的预后。

二、RIL的预测模型

1.建立循环血液剂量学模型预测RIL:循环免疫细胞有效剂量(the effective dose to the circulating immune cells, EDIC)是RIL的重要预测因子。基于剂量-免疫效应建立的EDIC模型在预测RIL方面展现重要临床价值。Chen等[11]建立的EDIC剂量学模型验证了EDIC与乳腺癌患者RIL的发生显著相关,随着EDIC的增加,放疗前后ALC比值和放疗后ALC呈线性下降。后续研究将该模型扩展应用于多个瘤种,进行生存分析。在食管癌中,EDIC > 4 Gy导致4级RIL风险增加27% 且5年OS降低10%;而在非小细胞肺癌中,较高的EDIC同样显著增加4级RIL风险(OR=1.16),并使患者PFS和OS缩短6~10个月[12-13]。值得注意的是,乳腺癌患者化疗后出现骨髓抑制致使外周血免疫细胞总数下降,而细胞毒性CD8+T细胞比例升高,CD4+T细胞比例无显著变化,化疗后期与免疫治疗联合可通过免疫原性细胞死亡释放抗原,清除免疫抑制细胞,发挥协同抗肿瘤作用[14]

预测RIL还需考虑血液流动与照射区的动态相互作用。Qian等[15]构建血流模型以估算颅内肿瘤放疗期间循环血液细胞所受剂量,应用血流模型分析55例行脑转移姑息放疗的患者,发现循环淋巴细胞的剂量与RIL相关。Shin等[16]在此基础上提出血液辐射剂量学模型(hematological dose, HEDOS)突破传统剂量评估的限制,可估算任何部位放疗时循环血液细胞的受照剂量,生成血液剂量体积直方图作为定量评估工具。应用HEDOS模型预测头颈部肿瘤患者血液剂量对预后生存的影响,发现较高的循环血液剂量与较差的局部控制、无远处转移生存期和OS相关[17]。因此,通过血流剂量模型可估算循环血液的受照剂量以评估RIL的发生风险及预后影响。

2.建立人工智能模型预测RIL:肿瘤患者的临床特征影响RIL的发生,其包括基线ALC、年龄、基因等。随着人工智能技术的深入发展,以机器学习和体素分析(voxel-based analysis, VBA)为基础的人工智能模型纳入临床因素为RIL的个体化风险评估提供新方式。

不同于逻辑回归、随机森林等传统预测方式,混合深度学习模型整合剂量学参数与临床因素,可有效预测食管癌患者发生4级RIL风险(AUC=0.831)[18]。通过聚类技术识别具有相似临床特征和放射剂量学特征的患者亚群,采用极限梯度提升(extreme gradient boosting, XGBoost)算法建立风险模型,并运用可加性解释(shapley additive explanations, SHAP)技术解释机器学习模型的输出结果,进一步拓展该模型,结果显示基线ALC、接受特定剂量的肺和脾体积是食管癌发生4级RIL风险最重要的决定因素[19]。为量化剂量-反应关系,在机器学习模型中引入复合剂量评分(composite dosimetric score, CDS),多因素分析发现CDS、年龄和基线ALC与4级RIL的发生显著相关,CDS每增加一个单位,4级RIL的发生率增加2倍;随着CDS值的增加,老年患者发生4级RIL风险较年轻患者更高,可通过CDS预测食管癌患者发生RIL的风险[20]。通过深度学习模型揭示了低剂量(1 Gy)体积对乳腺癌放疗后淋巴细胞减少症的影响,实现了对乳腺癌患者发生RIL风险的预测,准确度达75%以上[21]

体素分析优于传统剂量体积直方图分析方法,可识别放疗不良反应的体部区域,反映器官的放射敏感性[22]。Abravan等[23]使用VBA分析肺癌患者的受照剂量与心脏、肺和胸椎的关系,发现胸椎V20 Gy、肺平均受照剂量和心脏平均受照剂量与淋巴细胞减少有关。进一步通过VBA发现,非小细胞肺癌患者XRCC1-rs25487的AA突变基因型与放疗期间淋巴细胞耗竭有关,揭示了遗传变异可能是预测RIL的重要因素[24]。Kim等[25]使用VBA分析肝癌放疗中肝脏剂量与RIL关系,发现肝段1和肝段7与严重RIL的发生相关,而肝段1与之关联最强(OR=1.228, P=0.048);肝脏与RIL表现出不均匀剂量反应模式,通过严格限制单个器官内的某些区段剂量可能降低RIL发生风险。VBA基于放疗照射部位及危及器官受照剂量可有效预测RIL。

三、RIL的预防措施

目前临床缺乏疗效确切的治疗淋巴细胞减少症的药物,对于RIL重在预防。选择合适的放疗方案、减少放疗次数、缩短总放疗时间等可降低淋巴细胞减少症的发生风险,目前已成为共识[26]。此外,保护免疫危及器官、应用新放疗设备与技术可能是利于淋巴细胞保护的新方向。

1. 保护免疫危及器官可能降低RIL风险:免疫危及器官(immune organs at risk, iOARs)即富含淋巴细胞的器官,一方面,人体淋巴细胞主要分布于胸腺、骨髓、脾脏及淋巴结等淋巴器官中;另一方面,循环淋巴细胞在心脏、肺、大血管等循环系统中流动,靶区内的处方剂量辐射和靶区外的非计划性辐射都将对其造成急性损伤而耗竭。因此,胸部放疗时需严格限制心脏、肺等危及器官的剂量体积,肺V10>85%时,4级RIL发生率为50%,而V10<55%时,4级RIL发生率为25%;心脏V10>80%时,4级RIL发生率为25%;EDIC>4 Gy时,3级RIL发生风险超过50%[2]。胸腺作为T淋巴细胞分化成熟的核心场所,其受照剂量与淋巴细胞减少具有相关性,胸腺作为iOARs加以剂量体积限制可有助于淋巴细胞保护[27]。腹部放疗中,脾脏因其独特的开放循环微血管结构,导致淋巴细胞滞留时间延长,脾脏平均受照剂量每增加1 Gy,最低ALC下降1%~2.9%,3级RIL发生率增加18.6%。胰腺癌或胃癌放疗时,勾画脾脏危及器官并进行剂量限制可能会降低RIL风险[2, 28]。此外,RIL受到解剖照射部位影响。骨盆较四肢长骨具有丰富的活性造血骨髓,大范围照射该区域易出现严重RIL[29]。盆腔放疗中骨髓V30被确立为直肠癌患者RIL的关键预测因子,骨髓作为iOARs予剂量体积限制,可显著保护直肠癌患者血液中的淋巴细胞[30]。因此,制定放疗方案时需评估发生RIL的风险,增加iOARs的剂量体积限制。

2.应用放疗新设备、新技术可能降低RIL风险:与调强光子治疗相比,质子治疗在食管癌、非小细胞肺癌等疾病中,能显著降低放疗引起的不良反应风险。一项关于食管癌的前瞻性Ⅱ期临床研究发现质子治疗与调强光子治疗相比,4级RIL的发生率降低25%(27.3% vs. 52.5%, P=0.01);且对于基线淋巴细胞绝对计数中等且靶区较大的患者,质子治疗对淋巴细胞保护更具优势[31]。同样在非小细胞肺癌中发现,与光子治疗相比,接受质子治疗的患者3级以上RIL发生率降低20%[32]。质子治疗较调强光子治疗更利于淋巴细胞保护归因于其精确的剂量分布,处方剂量跌落陡峭,有效减少周围正常组织的受照剂量。碳离子治疗具有相同效应,通过降低危及器官受照剂量,使非小细胞肺癌患者发生严重RIL的风险较常规放疗降低42%[33]。碳离子治疗在胰腺癌中也展现出淋巴细胞保护优势:与光子治疗相比,碳离子治疗使患者ALC维持正常水平,并延长患者的OS[34]。此效应归因于离子治疗布拉格峰精准剂量分布及高相对生物效能。

不同放疗分割方式对淋巴细胞的影响不同,低分割放疗较传统分割对淋巴细胞毒性影响小[30]。通过将低分割放疗推向极限,产生一种新放疗方式——FLASH放疗,它是用比常规放疗剂量率高800倍的剂量率(≥40 Gy/s)进行放疗,可减少进入放疗区域的循环血液量,显著降低淋巴细胞计数减少的发生风险并提高肿瘤控制率。Galts等[35]发现质子FLASH照射时循环淋巴细胞受照体积较调强质子治疗减少45%,使RIL风险降低69%。Li等[36]进一步验证,质子FLASH使循环淋巴细胞接受低剂量照射的体积较光子FLASH减少50%,使3~4级RIL的风险减少17%,且FLASH放疗对淋巴细胞保护效能优于立体定向放疗和常规分割放疗。高剂量率放疗可增加放疗敏感患者的淋巴细胞保护获益,对于淋巴细胞放射敏感性高的患者,高剂量率放疗可缩短放疗间隔时间,更有效地保护淋巴细胞,提高剂量率比减少分割次数更能显著减少淋巴细胞耗竭[37]。此外,FLASH放疗对淋巴细胞亚群恢复产生不同影响,FLASH质子放疗能增加肿瘤内CD8+T淋巴细胞的浸润,同时降低免疫抑制性调节T细胞比例,重塑抗肿瘤免疫应答,提高肿瘤控制率[38]。综上,FLASH放疗作为一种新的放疗方式在保护淋巴细胞、提高抗肿瘤疗效方面可能具有显著优势,但仍需更多大样本临床研究验证。

四、小结

严重RIL显著影响恶性肿瘤患者的预后,ALC检测时间节点的不同可能影响肿瘤患者RIL发生风险的评估与预后的比较,需进一步研究确定各实体瘤中最佳检测时机。通过循环血液剂量学模型和人工智能模型,可有效预测RIL的发生风险,为实现个体化放疗提供途径。现有放疗技术下增加脾脏、骨髓等免疫器官限量保护,应用质子及离子治疗和FLASH放疗有助于减轻RIL的发生风险,为淋巴细胞保护提供新思路。总之,预防严重RIL的发生,促使RIL早期恢复,可能是未来改善肿瘤患者预后的一个重要方向。

利益冲突  无

作者贡献声明  郑思思负责文献调研和论文撰写;夏彤、单秋洁协助文献收集;蔡尚指导论文修改;田野指导论文撰写

参考文献
[1]
Pouliliou SE, Lialiaris TS, Dimitriou T, et al. Survival fraction at 2 Gy and γH2AX expression kinetics in peripheral blood lymphocytes from cancer patients: Relationship with acute radiation-induced toxicities[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2015, 92(3): 667-674. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.02.023
[2]
Venkatesulu B, Giridhar P, Pujari L, et al. Lymphocyte sparing normal tissue effects in the clinic (LymphoTEC): A systematic review of dose constraint considerations to mitigate radiation-related lymphopenia in the era of immunotherapy[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2022, 177: 81-94. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2022.10.019
[3]
Pham TN, Coupey J, Yger F, et al. Effect of glioblastoma and brain radiotherapy on T-lymphocyte subpopulations in rodents[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2025, 206: 110801. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2025.110801
[4]
Damen P, Kroese TE, van Hillegersberg R, et al. The influence of severe radiation-induced lymphopenia on overall survival in solid tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2021, 111(4): 936-948. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.1695
[5]
Terrones-Campos C, Ledergerber B, Vogelius IR, et al. Hematological toxicity in patients with solid malignant tumors treated with radiation - temporal analysis, dose response and impact on survival[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2021, 158: 175-183. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2021.02.029
[6]
Damen P, Peters M, Hobbs B, et al. Defining the optimal radiation-induced lymphopenia metric to discern its survival impact in esophageal cancer[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2025, 122(1): 31-42. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.12.014
[7]
Saeed AM, Bentzen SM, Ahmad H, et al. Systematic review and pooled analysis of the impact of treatment-induced lymphopenia on survival of glioblastoma patients[J]. Radiat Oncol, 2024, 19(1): 36. DOI:10.1186/s13014-023-02393-3
[8]
Li Y, Liu A, Wang X, et al. The role of lymphocyte recovery index in prognosis prediction for locally advanced cervical cancer with radiation-induced lymphopenia[J]. Cancer Med, 2025, 14(4): e70638. DOI:10.1002/cam4.70638
[9]
Tseng I, Ai D, Chen Y, et al. Lymphocyte recovery from radiation-induced lymphopenia in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Correlations with prognosis and lymphocyte-related organs[J]. Radiat Oncol, 2023, 18(1): 172. DOI:10.1186/s13014-023-02354-w
[10]
Ji H, Zhang P, Zhen C, et al. The impact of radiation-related lymphocyte recovery on the prognosis of locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients: A retrospective analysis[J]. Radiat Oncol, 2025, 20(1): 14. DOI:10.1186/s13014-025-02587-x
[11]
Chen F, Jin JY, Hui T, et al. Radiation induced lymphopenia is associated with the effective dose to the circulating immune cells in breast cancer[J]. Front Oncol, 2022, 12: 768956. DOI:10.3389/fonc.2022.768956
[12]
Xu C, Jin JY, Zhang M, et al. The impact of the effective dose to immune cells on lymphopenia and survival of esophageal cancer after chemoradiotherapy[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2020, 146: 180-186. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2020.02.015
[13]
Friedes C, Iocolano M, Lee SH, et al. The effective radiation dose to immune cells predicts lymphopenia and inferior cancer control in locally advanced NSCLC[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2024, 190: 110030. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2023.110030
[14]
Bailur JK, Pawelec G, Hatse S, et al. Immune profiles of elderly breast cancer patients are altered by chemotherapy and relate to clinical frailty[J]. Breast Cancer Res, 2017, 19(1): 20. DOI:10.1186/s13058-017-0813-x
[15]
Qian JM, Akama-Garren E, Shin J, et al. Dosimetric modeling of lymphopenia in patients with metastatic cancer receiving palliative radiation and PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors[J]. Adv Radiat Oncol, 2022, 7(2): 100880. DOI:10.1016/j.adro.2021.100880
[16]
Shin J, Xing S, McCullum L, et al. HEDOS-a computational tool to assess radiation dose to circulating blood cells during external beam radiotherapy based on whole-body blood flow simulations[J]. Phys Med Biol, 2021, 66(16): 10.1088/1361-6560/ac16ea. DOI:10.1088/1361-6560/ac16ea
[17]
Tattenberg S, Shin J, Höhr C, et al. Correlation of dynamic blood dose with clinical outcomes in radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2025, 202: 110603. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110603
[18]
Zhu C, Lin SH, Jiang X, et al. A novel deep learning model using dosimetric and clinical information for grade 4 radiotherapy-induced lymphopenia prediction[J]. Phys Med Biol, 2020, 65(3): 035014. DOI:10.1088/1361-6560/ab63b6
[19]
Zhu C, Mohan R, Lin SH, et al. Identifying individualized risk profiles for radiotherapy-induced lymphopenia among patients with esophageal cancer using machine learning[J]. JCO Clin Cancer Inform, 2021, 5: 1044-1053. DOI:10.1200/CCI.21.00098
[20]
Chu Y, Zhu C, Hobbs BP, et al. Personalized composite dosimetric score-based machine learning model of severe radiation-induced lymphopenia among patients with esophageal cancer[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2024, 120(4): 1172-1180. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.05.018
[21]
Chen F, Zhou P, Ren G, et al. Interpretable deep learning insights: unveiling the role of 1 Gy volume on lymphopenia after radiotherapy in breast cancer[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2024, 197: 110333. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110333
[22]
McWilliam A, Palma G, Abravan A, et al. Voxel-based analysis: roadmap for clinical translation[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2023, 188: 109868. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109868
[23]
Abravan A, Faivre-Finn C, Kennedy J, et al. Radiotherapy-related lymphopenia affects overall survival in patients with lung cancer[J]. J Thorac Oncol, 2020, 15(10): 1624-1635. DOI:10.1016/j.jtho.2020.06.008
[24]
Palma G, Cella L, Monti S. Technical note: MAMBA-Multi-pAradigM voxel-based analysis: A computational cookbot[J]. Med Phys, 2023, 50(4): 2317-2322. DOI:10.1002/mp.16260
[25]
Kim S, Byun HK, Sung W. Spatial dose-response pattern associated with severe radiation-induced lymphopenia in the liver: A voxel-based analysis[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2025, 123(2): 563-571. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.03.082
[26]
赵旭冉, 孙广毅, 王淑莲. 放射治疗诱发淋巴细胞减少的预防和治疗进展[J]. 中华放射肿瘤学杂志, 2022, 31(12): 1190-1194.
Zhao XR, Sun GY, Wang SL. Advances in prevention and treatment of radiation-induced lymphopenia[J]. Chin J Radiat Oncol, 2022, 31(12): 1190-1194. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn113030-20210802-00221
[27]
Zhang J, Yang L, Li H, et al. Dosimetric effect of thymus and thoracic duct on radiation-induced lymphopenia in patients with primary lung cancer who received thoracic radiation[J]. Adv Radiat Oncol, 2023, 8(6): 101260. DOI:10.1016/j.adro.2023.101260
[28]
Alexandru M, Rodica A, Dragos-Eugen G, et al. Assessing the spleen as an organ at risk in radiation therapy and its relationship with radiation-induced lymphopenia: A retrospective study and literature Review[J]. Adv Radiat Oncol, 2021, 6(6): 100761. DOI:10.1016/j.adro.2021.100761
[29]
Pavarini M, Alborghetti L, Aimonetto S, et al. Pelvic bone marrow dose-volume predictors of late lymphopenia following pelvic lymph node radiation therapy for prostate cancer[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2024, 195: 110230. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110230
[30]
Nanos C, Koukourakis IM, Mulita A, et al. Lymphopenia induced by different neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy schedules in patients with rectal cancer: Bone marrow as an organ at risk[J]. Curr Oncol, 2024, 31(10): 5774-5788. DOI:10.3390/curroncol31100429
[31]
Wang X, van Rossum P, Chu Y, et al. Severe lymphopenia during chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer: comprehensive analysis of randomized phase 2B trial of proton beam therapy versus intensity modulated radiation therapy[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2024, 118(2): 368-377. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.08.058
[32]
Cortiula F, Hendriks L, Wijsman R, et al. Proton and photon radiotherapy in stage Ⅲ NSCLC: Effects on hematological toxicity and adjuvant immune therapy[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2024, 190: 110019. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2023.110019
[33]
Li Y, Fan X, Yu Q, et al. Proton and carbon ion radiation therapy decreased severe lymphopenia by reducing thoracic vertebra and aortic doses in non-small cell lung cancer versus intensity modulated radiation therapy[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2023, 116(3): 579-589. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.12.030
[34]
Yang G, Koom WS, Lee BM, et al. Reduced risk of severe radiation-induced lymphopenia in carbon ion radiation therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A comparative analysis of carbon versus photon therapy[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2024, 120(2): 544-554. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.04.003
[35]
Galts A, Hammi A. FLASH radiotherapy sparing effect on the circulating lymphocytes in pencil beam scanning proton therapy: impact of hypofractionation and dose rate[J]. Phys Med Biol, 2024, 69(2): 025006. DOI:10.1088/1361-6560/ad144e
[36]
Li J, Mali R, Gan GN, et al. Patient-specific modeling of radiation-induced lymphopenia for head and neck cancer[J]. Med Phys, 2026, 52(6): 3583-3594. DOI:10.1002/mp.17829
[37]
McCullum L, Shin J, Xing S, et al. Predicting severity of radiation induced lymphopenia in individual proton therapy patients for varying dose rate and fractionation using dynamic 4-dimensional blood flow simulations[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2023, 116(5): 1226-1233. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.01.054
[38]
Shukla S, Saha T, Rama N, et al. Ultra-high dose-rate proton FLASH improves tumor control[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2023, 186: 109741. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109741