Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28291917›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2017

Rectal dose to prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy with or without rectal spacer.

Heeteak Chung, Jerimy Polf, Shahed Badiyan, Matthew Biagioli, Daniel Fernandez, Kujtim Latifi, Richard Wilder, Minesh Mehta, Michael Chuong

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Heeteak ChungDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, Baltimore School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jerimy PolfDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, Baltimore School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Shahed BadiyanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, Baltimore School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Matthew BiagioliDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Florida Hospital Cancer Institute, Orlando, FL, USA.
Daniel FernandezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Kujtim LatifiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Richard WilderDepartment of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Minesh MehtaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, Baltimore School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Michael ChuongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, Baltimore School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a spacer inserted in the prerectal space could reduce modeled rectal dose and toxicity rates for patients with prostate cancer treated in silico with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy. A total of 20 patients were included in this study who received photon therapy (12 with rectal spacer (DuraSeal™ gel) and 8 without). Two PBS treatment plans were retrospectively created for each patient using the following beam arrangements: (1) lateral-opposed (LAT) fields and (2) left and right anterior oblique (LAO/RAO) fields. Dose volume histograms (DVH) were generated for the prostate, rectum, bladder, and right and left femoral heads. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity was calculated using the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model and compared between patients with and without the rectal spacer. A significantly lower mean rectal DVH was achieved in patients with rectal spacer compared to those without. For LAT plans, the mean rectal V70 with and without rectal spacer was 4.19 and 13.5%, respectively. For LAO/RAO plans, the mean rectal V70 with and without rectal spacer was 5.07 and 13.5%, respectively. No significant differences were found in any rectal dosimetric parameters between the LAT and the LAO/RAO plans generated with the rectal spacers. We found that ≥ 9 mm space resulted in a significant decrease in NTCP modeled for ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity. Rectal spacers can significantly decrease modeled rectal dose and predicted ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated in silico with PBS. A minimum of 9 mm separation between the prostate and anterior rectal wall yields the largest benefit.

Indexed as

Proton TherapyHumansMalePhotonsProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRectumRetrospective StudiesUrinary Bladderprostate cancerproton beam scanningrectal spacers

Identifiers

PMID28291917
PMCPMC5689902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.