ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2016
Comparison of dosimetric parameters and toxicity in esophageal cancer patients undergoing 3D conformal radiotherapy or VMAT.
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 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiation Pneumonitis after Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: Institutional Data and a Systematic Review.Scientific reports · 2019Pooled it
- Phase II randomized trial of 41.4 Gy vs. 50.4 Gy in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable esophageal cancer.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Dose to cardiac substructures and cardiovascular events in esophageal cancer patients treated with definitive radiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) of esophageal cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Chemoradiation for elderly patients (≥ 65 years) with esophageal cancer: a retrospective single-center analysis.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2022Article
- Proton Beam Therapy for Esophageal Cancer.Cancers · 2022Review
- Association of volumetric-modulated arc therapy with radiation pneumonitis in thoracic esophageal cancer.Journal of radiation research · 2022Article
- Article
- Adjuvant Radiotherapy of Involved Field versus Elective Lymph Node in Patients with Operable Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer: A Single Institution Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.Journal of Cancer · 2021Article
- Hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for fragile patients with oesophageal cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020Article
- Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiation in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2019Article
- Radiotherapy volume delineation using 18F-FDG-PET/CT modifies gross node volume in patients with oesophageal cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2018Article
- Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the treatment of esophageal cancer patients.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2018Article
- Comparison of definite chemoradiation therapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel or cisplatin/5-fluoruracil in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Article
- MicroRNA expression profiling for the prediction of resistance to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.Journal of translational medicine · 2018Article
- Perioperative chemotherapy vs. neoadjuvant chemoradiation in gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma : A population-based evaluation of the Munich Cancer Registry.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018Article
- Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer : Outcomes and patterns of failure.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018Article
- Article
- Comparison of neoadjuvant chemoradiation with carboplatin/ paclitaxel or cisplatin/ 5-fluoruracil in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVolumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) achieves high conformity to the planned target volume (PTV) and good sparing of organs at risk (OAR). This study compares dosimetric parameters and toxicity in esophageal cancer (EC) patients treated with VMAT and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween 2007 and 2014, 17 SC patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) with VMAT. Dose-volume histograms and toxicity were compared between these patients and 20 treated with 3D-CRT. All patients were irradiated with a total dose of 45 Gy. All VMAT patients received simultaneous chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5‑fluorouracil (5-FU) in treatment weeks 1 and 5. Of 20 patients treated with 3D-CRT, 13 (65 %) also received CRT with cisplatin and 5‑FU, whereas 6 patients (30 %) received CRT with weekly oxaliplatin and cetuximab, and a continuous infusion of 5‑FU (OE-7).
resultsThere were no differences in baseline characteristics between the treatment groups. For the lungs, VMAT was associated with a higher V5 (median 90.1 % vs. 79.7 %; p = 0.013) and V10 (68.2 % vs. 56.6 %; p = 0.014), but with a lower V30 (median 6.6 % vs. 11.0 %; p = 0.030). Regarding heart parameters, VMAT was associated with a higher V5 (median 100.0 % vs. 91.0 %; p = 0.043), V10 (92.0 % vs. 79.2 %; p = 0.047), and Dmax (47.5 Gy vs. 46.3 Gy; p = 0.003), but with a lower median dose (18.7 Gy vs. 30.0 Gy; p = 0.026) and V30 (17.7 % vs. 50.4 %; p = 0.015). Complete resection was achieved in 16 VMAT and 19 3D-CRT patients. Due to systemic progression, 2 patients did not undergo surgery. The most frequent postoperative complication was anastomosis insufficiency, occurring in 1 VMAT (6.7 %) and 5 3D-CRT patients (27.8 %; p = 0.180). Postoperative pneumonia was seen in 2 patients of each group (p = 1.000). There was no significant difference in 3‑year overall (65 % VMAT vs. 45 % 3D-CRT; p = 0.493) or 3‑year progression-free survival (53 % VMAT vs. 35 % 3D-CRT; p = 0.453).
conclusionAlthough dosimetric differences in lung and heart exposure were observed, no clinically relevant impact was detected in either patient group. In a real-life patient cohort, VMAT enables reduction of lung and heart V30 compared to 3D-CRT, which may contribute to reduced toxicity.
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.