Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27596221›Full record

Trial reportStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2016

Proton therapy posterior beam approach with pencil beam scanning for esophageal cancer : Clinical outcome, dosimetry, and feasibility.

Yue-Can Zeng, Shilpa Vyas, Quang Dang, Lindsay Schultz, Stephen R Bowen, Veena Shankaran, Farhood Farjah, Brant K Oelschlager, Smith Apisarnthanarax, Jing Zeng

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Randomized Phase IIB Trial of Proton Beam Therapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Robust Angle Selection in Particle Therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2021
    Review
  12. Review
  13. The Role of Modern Radiotherapy Technology in the Treatment of Esophageal Cancer.The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer : Outcomes and patterns of failure.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Yue-Can ZengDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, 39 Huaxiang Road, 110022, Shenyang, China.
Shilpa VyasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Campus Box 356043, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA.
Quang DangSeattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, 1570 N 115th St., 98133, Seattle, WA, USA.
Lindsay SchultzSeattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, 1570 N 115th St., 98133, Seattle, WA, USA.
Stephen R BowenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Campus Box 356043, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA.
Veena ShankaranDepartment of Medical Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA.
Farhood FarjahDepartment of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA.
Brant K OelschlagerDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA.
Smith ApisarnthanaraxDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Campus Box 356043, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jing ZengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Campus Box 356043, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA. jzeng13@uw.edu.
University of Washington Medical Center · USSeattle Cancer Care Alliance · USChina Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study is to present the dosimetry, feasibility, and preliminary clinical results of a novel pencil beam scanning (PBS) posterior beam technique of proton treatment for esophageal cancer in the setting of trimodality therapy.

methodsFrom February 2014 to June 2015, 13 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (T3-4N0-2M0; 11 adenocarcinoma, 2 squamous cell carcinoma) were treated with trimodality therapy (neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy). Eight patients were treated with uniform scanning (US) and 5 patients were treated with a single posterior-anterior (PA) beam PBS technique with volumetric rescanning for motion mitigation. Comparison planning with PBS was performed using three plans: AP/PA beam arrangement; PA plus left posterior oblique (LPO) beams, and a single PA beam. Patient outcomes, including pathologic response and toxicity, were evaluated.

resultsAll 13 patients completed chemoradiation to 50.4 Gy (relative biological effectiveness, RBE) and 12 patients underwent surgery. All 12 surgical patients had an R0 resection and pathologic complete response was seen in 25 %. Compared with AP/PA plans, PA plans have a lower mean heart (14.10 vs. 24.49 Gy, P < 0.01), mean stomach (22.95 vs. 31.33 Gy, P = 0.038), and mean liver dose (3.79 vs. 5.75 Gy, P = 0.004). Compared to the PA/LPO plan, the PA plan reduced the lung dose: mean lung dose (4.96 vs. 7.15 Gy, P = 0.020) and percentage volume of lung receiving 20 Gy (V

conclusionProton therapy with a single PA beam PBS technique for preoperative treatment of esophageal cancer appears safe and feasible.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy DosageAgedAged, 80 and overChemoradiotherapyEsophageal NeoplasmsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProton TherapyRadiation InjuriesRadiometryTreatment OutcomeEsophageal cancerProton therapyToxicity

Identifiers

PMID27596221
OpenAlexW2508273416

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.