Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26084351›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2015

Exploiting biological and physical determinants of radiotherapy toxicity to individualize treatment.

J E Scaife, G C Barnett, D J Noble, R Jena, S J Thomas, C M L West, N G Burnet

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J E Scaife1 University of Cambridge Department of Oncology, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
G C Barnett2 Cancer Research UK VoxTox Research Group, University of Cambridge Department of Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
D J Noble3 Oncology Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
R Jena1 University of Cambridge Department of Oncology, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
S J Thomas2 Cancer Research UK VoxTox Research Group, University of Cambridge Department of Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
C M L West5 Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK.
N G Burnet1 University of Cambridge Department of Oncology, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Addenbrooke's Hospital · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 13405Cancer Research UK 18504
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent advances in radiation delivery can improve tumour control probability (TCP) and reduce treatment-related toxicity. The use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in particular can reduce normal tissue toxicity, an objective in its own right, and can allow safe dose escalation in selected cases. Ideally, IMRT should be combined with image guidance to verify the position of the target, since patients, target and organs at risk can move day to day. Daily image guidance scans can be used to identify the position of normal tissue structures and potentially to compute the daily delivered dose. Fundamentally, it is still the tolerance of the normal tissues that limits radiotherapy (RT) dose and therefore tumour control. However, the dose-response relationships for both tumour and normal tissues are relatively steep, meaning that small dose differences can translate into clinically relevant improvements. Differences exist between individuals in the severity of toxicity experienced for a given dose of RT. Some of this difference may be the result of differences between the planned dose and the accumulated dose (DA). However, some may be owing to intrinsic differences in radiosensitivity of the normal tissues between individuals. This field has been developing rapidly, with the demonstration of definite associations between genetic polymorphisms and variation in toxicity recently described. It might be possible to identify more resistant patients who would be suitable for dose escalation, as well as more sensitive patients for whom toxicity could be reduced or avoided. Daily differences in delivered dose have been investigated within the VoxTox research programme, using the rectum as an example organ at risk. In patients with prostate cancer receiving curative RT, considerable daily variation in rectal position and dose can be demonstrated, although the median position matches the planning scan well. Overall, in 10 patients, the mean difference between planned and accumulated rectal equivalent uniform doses was -2.7 Gy (5%), and a dose reduction was seen in 7 of the 10 cases. If dose escalation was performed to take rectal dose back to the planned level, this should increase the mean TCP (as biochemical progression-free survival) by 5%. Combining radiogenomics with individual estimates of DA might identify almost half of patients undergoing radical RT who might benefit from either dose escalation, suggesting improved tumour cure or reduced toxicity or both.

Indexed as

Radiation InjuriesDose-Response Relationship, RadiationHumansNeoplasmsRadiotherapyRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRectum

Identifiers

PMID26084351
PMCPMC4628540
OpenAlexW1561770654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.