ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017
Comparison of dose distribution for head and neck cancer patients with and without dose painting escalation during radiotherapy realized with tomotherapy unit.
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 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.
- Trial
- DWI-guided DP-IMRT and conventional MRI-based IMRT in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a comparative study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Head and Neck Cancer Adaptive Radiation Therapy (ART): Conceptual Considerations for the Informed Clinician.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2019Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine and quantify the percentage dose increase to organs at risk (OARs) with multiple-level dose painting (DP) for patients with head and neck cancer in comparison with standard regimen.
methods12 patients who had undergone fluorine-18 fludeoxyglucose (
resultsNo statistically significant differences in beam-on time were observed between plans with and without DP. However, significantly higher doses were observed for all DP-escalated plans in the OARs, with only two exceptions: the brain stem and V
conclusionImportantly, even though DP escalation resulted in higher doses to OARs vs conventional treatment planning, these usually did not exceed the dose tolerance levels. However, clinical trials are necessary to confirm the benefits of DP and to guarantee no additional toxicity. Advances in knowledge: Multiple-level DP by numbers resulted in 3.0-12.9% dose increase, depending on the OAR. Our findings may suggest that DP escalation to very high doses is feasible for about 83% of patients without higher toxicity; however, it still should be confirmed on a larger group of patients.
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.