ArticleThe British journal of radiology2014
Efficacy of dose escalation on TCP, recurrence and second cancer risks: a mathematical study.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gene expression signature predicts radiation sensitivity in cell lines using the integral of dose-response curve.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Development and validation of genomic predictors of radiation sensitivity using preclinical data.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Modelling recurrence and second cancer risks induced by proton therapy.Mathematical medicine and biology : a journal of the IMA · 2018Article
- Estimation of second cancer risk after radiotherapy for rectal cancer: comparison of 3D conformal radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy using different high dose fractionation schemes.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2016Article
- Modeling age-dependent radiation-induced second cancer risks and estimation of mutation rate: an evolutionary approach.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe investigated the effects of conventional and hypofractionation protocols by modelling tumour control probability (TCP) and tumour recurrence time, and examined their impact on second cancer risks. The main objectives of this study include the following: (a) incorporate tumour recurrence time and second cancer risks into the TCP framework and analyse the effects of variable doses and (b) investigate an efficient protocol to reduce the risk of a secondary malignancy while maximizing disease-free survival and tumour control.
methodsA generalized mathematical formalism was developed that incorporated recurrence and second cancer risk models into the TCP dynamics.
resultsOur results suggest that TCP and relapse time are almost identical for conventional and hypofractionated regimens; however, second cancer risks resulting from hypofractionation were reduced by 22% when compared with the second cancer risk associated with a conventional protocol. The hypofractionated regimen appears to be sensitive to dose escalation and the corresponding impact on tumour recurrence time and reduction in second cancer risks. The reduction in second cancer risks is approximately 20% when the dose is increased from 60 to 72 Gy in a hypofractionated protocol.
conclusionOur results suggest that hypofractionation may be a more efficient regimen in the context of TCP, relapse time and second cancer risks. Overall, our study demonstrates the importance of including a second cancer risk model in designing an efficient radiation regimen. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The impact of various fractionation protocols on TCP and relapse in conjunction with second cancer risks is an important clinical question that is as yet unexplored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.