Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26959612›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016

Comparison of dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity after whole-pelvic vs prostate-only volumetric-modulated arc therapy with daily image guidance for prostate cancer.

Kentaro Ishii, Ryo Ogino, Yukinari Hosokawa, Chiaki Fujioka, Wataru Okada, Ryota Nakahara, Ryu Kawamorita, Takuhito Tada, Yoshiki Hayashi, Toshifumi Nakajima

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kentaro Ishii1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Ryo Ogino1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Yukinari Hosokawa2 Department of Urology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Chiaki Fujioka1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Wataru Okada1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Ryota Nakahara1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Ryu Kawamorita1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Takuhito Tada3 Department of Radiology, Izumi Municipal Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Yoshiki Hayashi2 Department of Urology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Toshifumi Nakajima1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Tane General Hospital · JPIzumi City General Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity rates between whole-pelvic (WP) and prostate-only (PO) volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with localized prostate cancer.

methodsA total of 224 consecutive patients treated with definitive VMAT to 78 Gy in 39 fractions were enrolled. Of these, 119 patients received initial WP VMAT at 46.8 Gy in 26 fractions using a simultaneous integrated boost technique, and 105 patients received PO VMAT. Image-guided radiotherapy was practised with daily cone beam CT.

resultsThe mean rectal dose, the rectal volume receiving ≥30 Gy (V30Gy), rectal V50Gy, the mean bladder dose, bladder V30Gy and bladder V50Gy were significantly increased in the WP group (p < 0.05 each); however, the rectal V70Gy did not differ between groups (p = 0.101), and the bladder V70Gy was significantly lower in the WP group (p = 0.029). The WP group experienced a significantly increased frequency of acute grade 2 diarrhoea relative to the PO group (5.9% vs 0%; p = 0.015). No differences were seen between the WP and PO groups in terms of acute grade 2 proctitis (10.1% vs 6.7%; p = 0.360) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity (12.6% vs 10.5%; p = 0.620).

conclusionDespite larger rectum and bladder volumes at low- and medium-dose levels, WP VMAT resulted in no significant increase in acute proctitis or GU toxicity when compared with PO VMAT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study demonstrates that whole-pelvic radiotherapy has comparable acute toxicity to those observed with prostate-only radiotherapy when VMAT with daily image guidance is used.

Indexed as

AgedHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPelvisPrevalenceProstatic NeoplasmsRadiation ExposureRadiation InjuriesRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRisk FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26959612
PMCPMC5258156
OpenAlexW2293214665

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.