Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25569661›Full record

Observational studyMedicine2015

Dosimetric comparative study of 3 different postoperative radiotherapy techniques (3D-CRT, IMRT, and RapidArc) for II-III stage rectal cancer.

Min Liu, Bailong Liu, Huidong Wang, Lijuan Ding, Yinghua Shi, Chao Ge, Xu Su, Xiaodong Liu, Lihua Dong

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Small bowel protection in IMRT for rectal cancer : A dosimetric study on supine vs. prone position.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2017
    Article
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Min LiuFrom the Department of Radiation Oncology (ML, BL, HW, L. Ding, YS, CG, L. Dong), The First Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun; Chinese Center for Medical Response to Radiation Emergency (XS), National Institute for Radiological Protection, China Center for Disease Control, Beijing; and Key Laboratory of Radiobiology (Ministry of Health) (XL), School of Public Health, Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Bailong Liu
Huidong Wang
Lijuan Ding
Yinghua Shi
Chao Ge
Xu Su
Xiaodong Liu
Lihua Dong
Jilin University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postoperative radiotherapy is critical for reducing local relapse for advanced rectal carcinoma but has many side effects. Our study compared the dose distribution of target volumes, protection of normal organs at risk (OAR), and monitor unit (MU) for 3 radiotherapy techniques (3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy [3D-CRT], intensity-modulated radiation therapy [IMRT], and RapidArc (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA)). The results advocate for the clinical application of RapidArc technique in the future.Thirty postoperative patients with rectal cancer were enrolled. The 3 radiotherapy plans mentioned above were designed for each patient. The target volume coverage indicators included average dose, conformity index (CI), and homogeneity index (HI) of planning tumor volume (PTV). OAR included the bladder, small intestine, colon, and bilateral proximal femurs. The 30 patients were divided into 3 groups (10 cases in each group) for postoperative radiotherapy with the 3D-CRT, IMRT, or RapidArc technique, respectively.Both the IMRT and RapidArc plans have a significantly higher average PTV dose and better CI and HI (P < 0.01) than 3D-CRT. IMRT and RapidArc result in significantly lower doses of irradiation for all the OAR examined. Both the IMRT and RapidArc plans have a significantly lower V40 of the bladder, small intestine, and colon than 3D-CRT (P < 0.01). The IMRT and RapidArc plans can also reduce the maximum dose (Dmax) for the left proximal femur, V30, and V40 of bilateral proximal femurs compared with 3D-CRT (P < 0.01). Compared with IMRT, RapidArc can further reduce the Dmax of the small intestine, the Dmax and V30 of the bilateral proximal femurs, and the V40 of the right proximal femur (P < 0.01). RapidArc reduces MU remarkably compared with IMRT (P < 0.01). Regarding acute side effects, IMRT and RapidArc can greatly reduce the incidence of grade 3 radiation-induced cystitis and grade 2 enteritis.Both IMRT and RapidArc are better than 3D-CRT regarding PTV coverage and OAR protection. Furthermore, RapidArc is superior to IMRT regarding protection of the small intestine and bilateral proximal femurs and requires a reduced treatment time. RapidArc could be widely applied for postoperative radiotherapy for patients with ΙΙ-ΙΙΙ stage rectal cancer.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative PeriodRadiotherapy, AdjuvantRectal Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID25569661
PMCPMC4602855
OpenAlexW2316498903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.