Keisuke Fujimoto
Tohoku University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Keisuke Fujimoto.
BMC Cancer | 2010
Keiichi Jingu; Hisanori Ariga; Tomohiro Kaneta; Yoshihiro Takai; Ken Takeda; Lindel Katja; Kakutaro Narazaki; Takahiro Metoki; Keisuke Fujimoto; Rei Umezawa; Yoshihiro Ogawa; Kenji Nemoto; Masashi Koto; Masatoshi Mitsuya; Naruhiro Matsufuji; Shoki Takahashi; Shogo Yamada
BackgroundTo evaluate the safety of focal dose escalation to regions with standardized uptake value (SUV) >2.0 using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) by comparison of radiotherapy plans using dose-volume histograms (DVHs) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancerMethodsFirst, we performed conventional radiotherapy with 40 Gy/20 fr. (CRT 40 Gy) for 12 patients with postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer, and then we performed FDG-PET/CT radiotherapy planning for those patients. We defined the regions with SUV > 2.0 as biological target volume (BTV) and made three boost plans for each patient: 1) CRT boost plan, 2) IMRT without dose-painting boost plan, and 3) IMRT with dose-painting boost plan. The total boost dose was 20 Gy. In IMRT with dose-painting boost plan, we increased the dose for BTV+5 mm by 30% of the prescribed dose. We added CRT boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 1), IMRT without dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 2) and IMRT with dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 3), and we compared those plans using DVHs and NTCP.ResultsDmean of PTV-PET and that of PTV-CT were 26.5 Gy and 21.3 Gy, respectively. V50 of small bowel PRV in summed plan 1 was significantly higher than those in other plans ((summed plan 1 vs. summed plan 2 vs. summed plan 3: 47.11 ± 45.33 cm3 vs. 40.63 ± 39.13 cm3 vs. 41.25 ± 39.96 cm3(p < 0.01, respectively)). There were no significant differences in V30, V40, V60, Dmean or NTCP of small bowel PRV.ConclusionsFDG-PET-guided IMRT can facilitate focal dose-escalation to regions with SUV above 2.0 for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer.
Radiation Oncology | 2011
Rei Umezawa; Hisanori Ariga; Yoshihiro Ogawa; Keiichi Jingu; Haruo Matsushita; Ken Takeda; Keisuke Fujimoto; Toru Sakayauchi; Toshiyuki Sugawara; Masaki Kubozono; Kakutaro Narazaki; Eiji Shimizu; Yoshihiro Takai; Shogo Yamada
BackgroundTo evaluate prognostic factors in salvage radiotherapy (RT) for patients with pre-RT prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < 1.0 ng/ml.MethodsBetween January 2000 and December 2009, 102 patients underwent salvage RT for biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy (RP). Re-failure of PSA after salvage RT was defined as a serum PSA value of 0.2 ng/ml or more above the postradiotherapy nadir followed by another higher value, a continued rise in serum PSA despite salvage RT, or initiation of systemic therapy after completion of salvage RT. Biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.ResultsThe median follow-up period was 44 months (range, 11-103 months). Forty-three patients experienced PSA re-failure after salvage RT. The 4-year bRFS was 50.9% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 39.4-62.5%). In the log-rank test, pT3-4 (p < 0.001) and preoperative PSA (p = 0.037) were selected as significant factors. In multivariate analysis, only pT3-4 was a prognostic factor (hazard ratio: 3.512 [95% CI: 1.535-8.037], p = 0.001). The 4-year bRFS rates for pT1-2 and pT3-4 were 79.2% (95% CI: 66.0-92.3%) and 31.7% (95% CI: 17.0-46.4%), respectively.ConclusionsIn patients who have received salvage RT after RP with PSA < 1.0 ng/ml, pT stage and preoperative PSA were prognostic factors of bRFS. In particular, pT3-4 had a high risk for biochemical recurrence after salvage RT.
Anticancer Research | 2009
Ken Takeda; Yoshihiro Ogawa; Hisanori Ariga; Masashi Koto; Toru Sakayauchi; Keisuke Fujimoto; Kakutaro Narazaki; Masatoshi Mitsuya; Yoshihiro Takai; Shogo Yamada
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2007
Keiichi Jingu; Kenji Nemoto; Tomohiro Kaneta; Minako Oikawa; Yoshihiro Ogawa; Hisanori Ariga; Ken Takeda; Toru Sakayauchi; Keisuke Fujimoto; Kakutaro Narazaki; Yoshihiro Takai; Eiko Nakata; Hiroshi Fukuda; Shoki Takahashi; Shogo Yamada
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2004
Takuma Nomiya; Kenji Nemoto; Hideo Miyachi; Keisuke Fujimoto; Ken Takeda; Yoshihiro Ogawa; Yoshihiro Takai; Shogo Yamada
Anticancer Research | 2002
Takuma Nomiya; Kenji Nemoto; Hideo Miyachi; Keisuke Fujimoto; Chiaki Takahashi; Ken Takeda; Haruo Matushita; Yoshihiro Ogawa; Yoshihiro Takai; Shogo Yamada
Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine | 2011
Ken Takeda; K. Jingu; Masashi Koto; Keisuke Fujimoto; Kakutaro Narazaki; Masaki Kubozono; Hideo Saito; Shigeyuki Yamada; Kohji Mitsuduka; Shigeto Ishidoya; Hisanori Ariga; Yoichi Arai; Shogo Yamada
International Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2013
Hitoshi Wada; Kenji Nemoto; Takuma Nomiya; Misako Murakami; Motohisa Suzuki; Yuuki Kuroda; Mayumi Ichikawa; Ibuki Ota; Yasuhito Hagiwara; Hisanori Ariga; Ken Takeda; Kenji Takai; Keisuke Fujimoto; Masahiro Kenjo; Kazuhiko Ogawa
Oncology Reports | 2001
Kenji Nemoto; Yoshihiro Ogawa; Haruo Matsushita; K. Takeda; Chiaki Takahashi; Keisuke Fujimoto; Takuma Nomiya; Haruo Saito; Yoshihiro Takai; Shogo Yamada
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2008
Keisuke Fujimoto; Kenji Nemoto; Yoshihiro Ogawa; Hisanori Ariga; K. Takeda; Toru Sakayauchi; Masashi Koto; K. Jingu; Yoshihiro Takai; S. Yamada