ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017
Biological dose-escalated definitive radiation therapy in head and neck cancer.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Targeting Treatment Resistance in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma - Proof of Concept for CT Radiomics-Based Identification of Resistant Sub-Volumes.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare treatment outcome of patients with head and neck (HN) tumours treated with definitive radiation therapy that, mainly owing to differences in the fractionation scheme used with simultaneous integrated boost techniques, resulted in a different biological dose.
methods181 patients with HN cancer, prescribed to about 70.2 Gy in the primary tumour, were included in this study. Population cohort was divided into Group <70 and Group ≥70 when the mean dose converted to a 2 Gy fractionation in the primary tumour was less or higher than 70.2 Gy, respectively. The probability of local control (LC), locoregional control (LRC), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was determined for both groups. The incidence of acute and late complications was compared between the two groups.
resultsAt 24 months for Groups <70 and ≥70, LC was 83.2% and 87.5%, LRC was 79.5% and 81.6%, DFS was 56.3% and 66.8% and OS was 63.9% and 71.5% p = ns, respectively. The incidence of acute dysphagia, odynophagia and pain, and late mucositis was significantly higher in Group ≥70 than in Group <70. The rate of xerostomia, dysphonia, radiodermatitis, alopecia, dental complications, hypoacusia and weight loss was comparable between the two groups.
conclusionThe biological dose escalation was safe, but an increase in the incidence of the acute side effects: dysphagia, odynophagia and pain and late mucositis, was obtained. Advances in knowledge: Despite the significant biological dose escalation, within the range of doses delivered to this cohort, no clear dose-response effect was observed.
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.