ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2016
A lot to a little or a little to a lot-which dose-volume relationship ensures the best clinical outcome in the high dose radiation therapy of thoracic tumors? A prospective approach.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulmonary function changes following helical tomotherapy in patients with inoperable, locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2020Trial
- Improper lung volume-dose parameters are risk factors for acute fatal radiation pneumonitis among esophageal cancer patients receiving chemoradiotherapy: a case-control study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Radiotherapy-Related Dose and Irradiated Volume Effects on Breast Cancer Risk Among Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this prospective randomized trial is to determine which constellation of dose and corresponding volume of the lung tissue-either a lot to a little or a little to a lot-should be preferred to ensure the best possible outcome for patients with thoracic carcinomas.
methodsFrom Apr 2012 to Oct 2015, 81 patients with NSCLC, SCLC or esophageal carcinoma were randomized and treated with either a 4-field-IMRT or a VMAT technique with or without additional chemotherapy. Data regarding clinical outcome, pulmonary function tests (PFT) and quality of life (QoL) was collected before RT, 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 6 months after treatment, QoL data additionally 1 year post RT. Follow up CTs were done 12 weeks and 6 months after RT.
resultsThere is no significant difference regarding the local (P=0.954) and distant (P=0.206) outcome, side effects (all P>0.05) or survival (P=0.633) at any follow-up appointment. The comparison of the PFT shows a statistically significant difference for the DLCO 6 weeks post RT (P=0.028). All other parameters do not differ significantly at any follow up appointment. Regarding the QoL there is no statistically significant difference at any follow up appointment (P>0.1). There is a statistically significant difference between the mean density of the lung parenchyma at 12 weeks (P<0.0005) and 6 months post RT (P<0.0005).
conclusionsSince there is no significant and relevant difference between both treatment arms regarding PFT, clinical outcome and QoL it does not seem to relevant how the DVH is shaped exactly as long as established dose constraints for the organs at risk are respected. As to whether the difference between the CT density changes is clinically relevant further analysis is needed.
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.