Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27084647›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2016

Comparative Risk Predictions of Second Cancers After Carbon-Ion Therapy Versus Proton Therapy.

John G Eley, Thomas Friedrich, Kenneth L Homann, Rebecca M Howell, Michael Scholz, Marco Durante, Wayne D Newhauser

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Carbon ion radiation therapy in breast cancer: a new frontier.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

John G EleyDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: jeley@som.umaryland.edu.
Thomas FriedrichGSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany.
Kenneth L HomannDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas.
Rebecca M HowellDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas.
Michael ScholzGSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany.
Marco DuranteGSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany.
Wayne D NewhauserDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research · DEThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USLouisiana State University Agricultural Center · US

Funding

Prediction of Second Cancer Risks for Children Treated with Proton - vs. - PhotonR01CA131463 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI NEWHAUSER, WAYNE D · 2008 to 2010
$767k
NCI NIH HHS 1 R01 CA 131463-01A1NCI NIH HHS R01 CA131463
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis work proposes a theoretical framework that enables comparative risk predictions for second cancer incidence after particle beam therapy for different ion species for individual patients, accounting for differences in relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for the competing processes of tumor initiation and cell inactivation. Our working hypothesis was that use of carbon-ion therapy instead of proton therapy would show a difference in the predicted risk of second cancer incidence in the breast for a sample of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We generated biologic treatment plans and calculated relative predicted risks of second cancer in the breast by using two proposed methods: a full model derived from the linear quadratic model and a simpler linear-no-threshold model.

resultsFor our reference calculation, we found the predicted risk of breast cancer incidence for carbon-ion plans-to-proton plan ratio, <Rc/Rp>, to be 0.75 ± 0.07 but not significantly smaller than 1 (P=.180).

conclusionsOur findings suggest that second cancer risks are, on average, comparable between proton therapy and carbon-ion therapy.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedBreastBreast NeoplasmsCarbonEsophagusFemaleHeartHeavy Ion RadiotherapyHodgkin DiseaseHumansIncidenceLinear ModelsLungNeoplasms, Second PrimaryOrgans at RiskProton TherapyCarbon

Identifiers

PMID27084647
PMCPMC4844193
OpenAlexW2285980177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.