Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16235387›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Hyperbaric oxygenation for tumour sensitisation to radiotherapy.

M Bennett, J Feldmeier, R Smee, C Milross

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Radioresistance Mechanisms in Head and Neck Cancer.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. TME-Activated MnOInternational journal of nanomedicine · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M BennettPrince of Wales Hospital, Department of Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine, Barker Street, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia 2031. m.bennett@unsw.edu.au
J Feldmeier
R Smee
C Milross

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer is common and radiotherapy is one well-established treatment for some solid tumours. HBO may improve the ability of radiotherapy to kill hypoxic cancer cells, so the administration of radiotherapy while breathing HBO may result in a reduction in mortality and tumour recurrence.

objectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of radiotherapy while breathing HBO. SEARCH STRATEGY: In November 2004 we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE , CINAHL, DORCTHIM and reference lists of articles. Relevant journals were handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing the outcome of malignant tumours following radiation therapy while breathing HBO versus air (with or without sham therapy). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the relevant trials using the method of Schulz (Schulz 1995) and extracted the data from the included trials. MAIN

resultsNineteen trials contributed to this review (2286 patients: 1103 allocated to HBO and 1153 control). With HBO, there was a reduction in mortality for head and neck cancers at both one year and five years after therapy (Relative risk (RR) 0.83, P = 0.03, number needed to treat (NNT) = 11 and RR 0.82, P = 0.03, NNT = 5 respectively), as well as improved local tumour control at three months (RR with HBOT 0.58, P = 0.006, NNT = 7). The effect of HBO varied with different fractionation schemes. Local tumour recurrence was less likely with HBO at one year (head and neck, RR 0.66, P < 0.0001, NNT = 5), two years (uterine cervix RR 0.60, P = 0.04, NNT = 5) and five years (head and neck (RR 0.77, P = 0.01). Any advantage is achieved at the cost of some adverse effects. There was a significant increase in the rate of both severe radiation tissue injury (RR 2.35, P < 0.0001, (number needed to harm (NNH) = 8) and the chance of seizures during therapy (RR 6.76, P = 0.03, NNH 22) with HBO. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is some evidence that HBO improves local tumour control and mortality for cancers of the head and neck, and local tumour recurrence in cancers of the head and neck, and uterine cervix. These benefits may only occur with unusual fractionation schemes. HBO is associated with significant adverse effects including oxygen toxic seizures and severe tissue radiation injury. The methodological and reporting inadequacies of the primary studies included in this review demand a cautious interpretation. More research is needed for head and neck cancer, but is probably not justified for bladder cancer. There is little evidence available concerning malignancies at other anatomical sites on which to base a recommendation.

Indexed as

Hyperbaric OxygenationCombined Modality TherapyHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.