ArticleJournal of radiation research2017
A surveillance study of the current status of reirradiation and patterns of practice.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors and characteristics of late recurrence in non-small cell lung cancer patients 5 years or more after complete resection.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Characteristics of Oligo-Recurrence and Treatment Selection in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Cancers · 2025Review
- A surveillance study of patterns of reirradiation practice using external beam radiotherapy in Japan.Journal of radiation research · 2021Article
- Quality indicators in radiation oncology: proposal of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) for a continuous improvement of the quality of care in oncology.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2019Article
- Number of radiotherapy treatment machines in the population and cancer mortality: an ecological study.Clinical epidemiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to survey the current status of reirradiation (Re-RT) and patterns of practice in Japan. An email questionnaire was sent to Kansai Cancer Therapist Group partner institutions, using questions similar to those in the Canadian radiation oncologist (RO) survey (2008). A total of 34 ROs from 28 institutions returned the survey. All 28 institutions experienced Re-RT cases in 2014. However, 26 of the 28 institutions (93%) reported difficulty in obtaining Re-RT case information from their respective databases. Responses from 19 institutions included the number of Re-RT cases; this rose from 183 in the period 2005-2009 (institution median = 4; 2-12.9) to 562 in the period 2010-2014 (institution median = 26; 2-225). Important considerations for indication of Re-RT were age (65%), performance status (83%), life expectancy (70%), absence of distant metastases (67%), and interval since previous treatment (73%). Previous total radiation dose (48%), volume of tissue irradiated (72%), and the biologically equivalent dose (BED; 68.5%) were taken into account during Re-RT planning. These factors were similar to those considered in the Canadian survey; however, the present study did not consider age. In eight site-specific scenarios, barring central nervous system recurrence, more than 90% of ROs agreed to perform Re-RT, which was higher than the percentage observed in the Canadian survey. Re-RT cases have increased in number and aroused interest among ROs in this decade of advanced technology. However, consensus building to establish guidelines for the practice and prospective evaluation of Re-RT is required.
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.