ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2016
Unilateral and bilateral neck SIB for head and neck cancer patients : Intensity-modulated proton therapy, tomotherapy, and RapidArc.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Report on planning comparison of VMAT, IMRT and helical tomotherapy for the ESCALOX-trial pre-study.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Trial
- Impact of delivery time factor on treatment time and plan quality in tomotherapy.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Intensity-modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer reduces rates of late xerostomia.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2021Article
- Helical tomotherapy: Comparison of Hi-ART and Radixact clinical patient treatments at the Technical University of Munich.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Early clinical outcomes of helical tomotherapy/intensity-modulated proton therapy combination in nasopharynx cancer.Cancer science · 2019Article
- Trends and Disparities of Proton Therapy Use among Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: Analysis from the National Cancer Database (2005-14).International journal of particle therapy · 2019Article
- Impact of robust treatment planning on single- and multi-field optimized plans for proton beam therapy of unilateral head and neck target volumes.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2017Article
- Article
- A Model-Based Method for Assessment of Salivary Gland and Planning Target Volume Dosimetry in Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Planning on Head-and-Neck Cancer.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- A Dosimetric Comparison of Oral Cavity Sparing in the Unilateral Treatment of Early Stage Tonsil Cancer: IMRT, IMPT, and Tongue-Deviating Oral Stents.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare simultaneous integrated boost plans for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), helical tomotherapy (HT), and RapidArc therapy (RA) for patients with head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 20 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck received definitive chemoradiation with bilateral (n = 14) or unilateral (n = 6) neck irradiation and were planned using IMPT, HT, and RA with 54.4, 60.8, and 70.4 GyE/Gy in 32 fractions. Dose distributions, coverage, conformity, homogeneity to planning target volumes (PTV)s and sparing of organs at risk and normal tissue were compared.
resultsAll unilateral and bilateral plans showed excellent PTV coverage and acceptable dose conformity. For unilateral treatment, IMPT delivered substantially lower mean doses to contralateral salivary glands (< 0.001-1.1 Gy) than both rotational techniques did (parotid gland: 6-10 Gy; submandibular gland: 15-20 Gy). Regarding the sparing of classical organs at risk for bilateral treatment, IMPT and HT were similarly excellent and RA was satisfactory.
conclusionFor unilateral neck irradiation, IMPT may minimize the dry mouth risk in this subgroup but showed no advantage over HT for bilateral neck treatment regarding classical organ-at-risk sparing. All methods satisfied modern standards regarding toxicity and excellent target coverage for unilateral and bilateral treatment of head and neck cancer at the planning level.
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.