Trial reportThe British journal of radiology2017
Effect of accurate heart delineation on cardiac dose during the CONVERT trial.
Trial report 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. It is linked to trial NCT00433563 (A 2-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial of Concurrent Chemo-Radiotherapy Comparing Twice-Daily and Once-Daily Radiotherapy Schedules in Patients With Limited Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
A 2-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial of Concurrent Chemo-Radiotherapy Comparing Twice-Daily and Once-Daily Radiotherapy Schedules in Patients With Limited Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) and Good Performance Status [CONVERT]
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A review of clinical trial radiotherapy quality assurance: value, evolution and lessons.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Magnetic resonance imaging thoracic organ-at-risk atlas for radiation oncology.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Cardiac substructure delineation in radiation therapy - A state-of-the-art review.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2024Review
- Geometrical and dosimetrical evaluation of different interpretations of a european consensus delineation guideline for the internal mammary lymph node chain in breast cancer patients.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Heart atlas for retrospective cardiac dosimetry: a multi-institutional study on interobserver contouring variations and their dosimetric impact.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Article
- Recent developments in limited stage small cell lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2019Review
- Practice-changing radiation therapy trials for the treatment of cancer: where are we 150 years after the birth of Marie Curie?British journal of cancer · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigated the effect of deviation from protocol in heart delineation for the Concurrent Once-daily Versus twice-daily Radiotherapy (CONVERT) Trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00433563) quality assurance (QA) programme and the effect of that on mean cardiac dose and percentage of heart volume receiving ≥5 Gy (V
methodsPatients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer in the CONVERT trial were randomized to receive 45 Gy in 30# twice daily or 66 Gy in 33# once daily radiotherapy, with concurrent chemotherapy in both arms. Of the 100 trial patient cases reviewed by the QA team [for patient selection, disease/organs at risk (OARs) outlining and treatment planning], 50 patient cases were selected, and the heart was reoutlined according to the "gold standard" trial protocol. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) data were extracted. The impact of change in heart volume on cardiac DVH is presented.
resultsFor gold standard cardiac outlines, an increase in V
conclusionThis study demonstrates the importance of having a robust QA programme in place to ensure accuracy of cardiac delineation to facilitate future studies investigating the impact of cardiac dose on toxicity. Advances in knowledge: This study highlights the importance of ensuring accurate delineation of OARs in clinical trials, where conclusions about normal tissue toxicity are to be drawn.
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.