Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24362502›Full record

ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2014

Particle therapy for mucosal melanoma of the head and neck. A single-institution retrospective comparison of proton and carbon ion therapy.

Y Demizu, O Fujii, K Terashima, M Mima, N Hashimoto, Y Niwa, T Akagi, T Daimon, M Murakami, N Fuwa

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Physical advantages of particles: protons and light ions.The British journal of radiology · 2020
    Review
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Y DemizuDepartment of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, 1-2-1 Kouto, Shingu-cho, 679-5165, Tatsuno, Hyogo, Japan, y_demizu@nifty.com.
O Fujii
K Terashima
M Mima
N Hashimoto
Y Niwa
T Akagi
T Daimon
M Murakami
N Fuwa
Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center · JPHyogo Medical University · JPDokkyo Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo retrospectively analyze treatment outcomes after particle therapy using protons or carbon ions for mucosal melanoma of the head and neck (HNMM) at the Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, as well as to compare proton therapy (PT) and carbon ion therapy (CIT). PATIENTS AND

methodsData from 62 HNMM patients without metastasis, treated with PT or CIT between October 2003 and April 2011 were analyzed. Median patient age was 70.5 years (range 33-89 years). Of the total patients, 33 (53 %) had received PT and 29 (47 %) had undergone CIT. Protocols for 65 or 70.2 GyE in 26 fractions were used for both ion types.

resultsMedian follow-up was 18.0 months (range 5.2-82.7 months). The 1-/2-year overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) rates were 93 %/61 % and 93 %/78 % for all patients, 91 %/44 % and 92 %/71 % for the PT patients and 96 %/62 % and 95 %/59 % for the CIT patients, respectively. No significant differences were observed between PT and CIT. Local recurrence was observed in 8 patients (PT: 5, CIT: 3) and 29 (PT: 18, CIT: 11) experienced distant metastases. Acute reactions were acceptable and all patients completed the planned radiotherapy. Regarding late toxicity, grade 3 or greater events were observed in 5 patients (PT: 3, CIT: 2), but no significant difference was observed between PT and CIT.

conclusionOur single-institution retrospective analysis demonstrated that particle therapy for HNMM achieved good LC, but OS was unsatisfactory. There were no significant differences between PT and CIT in terms of either efficacy or toxicity.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionDose Fractionation, RadiationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHeavy Ion RadiotherapyHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedMouth NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNose Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID24362502
OpenAlexW2182428147

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.