Carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) offers superior dose distributions and greater biological effectiveness than conventional photon-based radiotherapy (RT). Due to its higher linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness, CIRT is particularly effective against radioresistant tumors and those located near critical organs. Since the first dedicated CIRT facility was established in Japan in 1994, CIRT has demonstrated remarkable efficacy against various malignancies, including head and neck tumors, skull base and upper cervical spine tumors, non-small-cell lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and bone and soft tissue sarcomas. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the current status of CIRT, highlighting its clinical indications and future directions. According to clinical studies, CIRT achieves high local control rates with manageable toxicity across multiple cancer types. For instance, in head and neck tumors (e.g., adenoid cystic carcinoma and mucosal melanoma), CIRT has achieved local control rates exceeding 80%. In early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer, CIRT has resulted in local control rates over 90% with minimal toxicity. Moreover, CIRT has shown promise in treating challenging cases of hepatocellular carcinoma and pancreatic cancer, where conventional therapies are limited. Nonetheless, the global adoption of CIRT remains limited due to high costs and complexity. Future directions include conducting randomized controlled trials to establish high-level evidence, integrating new technologies such as ultrahigh-dose-rate (FLASH) therapy, and expanding CIRT facilities globally with strategic planning and cost-effectiveness analyses. If these challenges are addressed, CIRT is poised to play a transformative role in cancer treatment, improving survival rates and the quality of life.

Background and Objectives: The popliteal artery is generally regarded as a “no-stent zone.”Limited data are available on the outcomes of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for popliteal artery disease. This study aimed to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes among patients who received DCB treatment for atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. Methods: This prospective, multicenter registry study enrolled 100 patients from 7 Korean endovascular centers who underwent endovascular therapy using IN.PACT DCB (Medtronic) for symptomatic atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. The primary endpoint was 12-month clinical primary patency and the secondary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR)–free rate. Results: The mean age of the study cohort was 65.7±10.8 years, and 77% of enrolled patients were men. The mean lesion length was 93.7±53.7 mm, and total occlusions were present in 45% of patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Combined atherectomy was performed in 17% and provisional stenting was required in 11%. Out of the enrolled patients, 91 patients completed the 12-month follow-up. Clinical primary patency and TLR-free survival rates at 12 months were 76.0% and 87.2%, respectively. A multivariate Cox regression analysis identified female and longer lesion length as the significant independent predictors of loss of patency. Conclusions DCB treatment yielded favorable 12-month clinical primary patency and TLRfree survival outcomes in patients with popliteal artery disease.

Carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) offers superior dose distributions and greater biological effectiveness than conventional photon-based radiotherapy (RT). Due to its higher linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness, CIRT is particularly effective against radioresistant tumors and those located near critical organs. Since the first dedicated CIRT facility was established in Japan in 1994, CIRT has demonstrated remarkable efficacy against various malignancies, including head and neck tumors, skull base and upper cervical spine tumors, non-small-cell lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and bone and soft tissue sarcomas. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the current status of CIRT, highlighting its clinical indications and future directions. According to clinical studies, CIRT achieves high local control rates with manageable toxicity across multiple cancer types. For instance, in head and neck tumors (e.g., adenoid cystic carcinoma and mucosal melanoma), CIRT has achieved local control rates exceeding 80%. In early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer, CIRT has resulted in local control rates over 90% with minimal toxicity. Moreover, CIRT has shown promise in treating challenging cases of hepatocellular carcinoma and pancreatic cancer, where conventional therapies are limited. Nonetheless, the global adoption of CIRT remains limited due to high costs and complexity. Future directions include conducting randomized controlled trials to establish high-level evidence, integrating new technologies such as ultrahigh-dose-rate (FLASH) therapy, and expanding CIRT facilities globally with strategic planning and cost-effectiveness analyses. If these challenges are addressed, CIRT is poised to play a transformative role in cancer treatment, improving survival rates and the quality of life.

Carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) offers superior dose distributions and greater biological effectiveness than conventional photon-based radiotherapy (RT). Due to its higher linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness, CIRT is particularly effective against radioresistant tumors and those located near critical organs. Since the first dedicated CIRT facility was established in Japan in 1994, CIRT has demonstrated remarkable efficacy against various malignancies, including head and neck tumors, skull base and upper cervical spine tumors, non-small-cell lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and bone and soft tissue sarcomas. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the current status of CIRT, highlighting its clinical indications and future directions. According to clinical studies, CIRT achieves high local control rates with manageable toxicity across multiple cancer types. For instance, in head and neck tumors (e.g., adenoid cystic carcinoma and mucosal melanoma), CIRT has achieved local control rates exceeding 80%. In early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer, CIRT has resulted in local control rates over 90% with minimal toxicity. Moreover, CIRT has shown promise in treating challenging cases of hepatocellular carcinoma and pancreatic cancer, where conventional therapies are limited. Nonetheless, the global adoption of CIRT remains limited due to high costs and complexity. Future directions include conducting randomized controlled trials to establish high-level evidence, integrating new technologies such as ultrahigh-dose-rate (FLASH) therapy, and expanding CIRT facilities globally with strategic planning and cost-effectiveness analyses. If these challenges are addressed, CIRT is poised to play a transformative role in cancer treatment, improving survival rates and the quality of life.

Background and Objectives: The popliteal artery is generally regarded as a “no-stent zone.”Limited data are available on the outcomes of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for popliteal artery disease. This study aimed to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes among patients who received DCB treatment for atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. Methods: This prospective, multicenter registry study enrolled 100 patients from 7 Korean endovascular centers who underwent endovascular therapy using IN.PACT DCB (Medtronic) for symptomatic atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. The primary endpoint was 12-month clinical primary patency and the secondary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR)–free rate. Results: The mean age of the study cohort was 65.7±10.8 years, and 77% of enrolled patients were men. The mean lesion length was 93.7±53.7 mm, and total occlusions were present in 45% of patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Combined atherectomy was performed in 17% and provisional stenting was required in 11%. Out of the enrolled patients, 91 patients completed the 12-month follow-up. Clinical primary patency and TLR-free survival rates at 12 months were 76.0% and 87.2%, respectively. A multivariate Cox regression analysis identified female and longer lesion length as the significant independent predictors of loss of patency. Conclusions DCB treatment yielded favorable 12-month clinical primary patency and TLRfree survival outcomes in patients with popliteal artery disease.

Background: This study compared the costs associated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Korea by utilizing the National Health Insurance Service database. Methods: Between June 2015 and May 2019, 1,468 patients underwent primary isolated transfemoral TAVI, while 2,835 patients received primary isolated SAVR with a bioprosthesis. We assessed the costs of index hospitalization and subsequent healthcare utilization, categorizing the cohort into 6 age subgroups: <70, 70–74, 75–79, 80–84, 85–89, and ≥90 years. The median follow-up periods were 2.5 and 3.0 years in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively. Results: The index hospitalization costs were 41.0 million Korean won (KRW) (interquartile range [IQR], 39.1–44.7) for the TAVI group and 24.6 million KRW (IQR, 21.3–30.2) for the SAVR group (p<0.001). The TAVI group exhibited relatively constant index hospitalization costs across different age subgroups. In contrast, the SAVR group showed increasing index hospitalization costs with advancing age. The healthcare utilization costs were 5.7 million KRW per year (IQR, 3.3–14.2) for the TAVI group and 4.0 million KRW per year (IQR, 2.2–9.0) for the SAVR group (p<0.001). Healthcare utilization costs were higher in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group for the age subgroups of <70, 70–74, and 75–79 years, and were comparable in the age subgroups of 80–84, 85–89, and ≥90 years. Conclusion TAVI had much higher index hospitalization costs than SAVR. Additionally, the overall healthcare utilization costs post-discharge for TAVI were also marginally higher than those for SAVR in younger age subgroups.