Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28588749›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of hepatology2017

Strategies to tackle the challenges of external beam radiotherapy for liver tumors.

Michael I Lock, Jonathan Klein, Hans T Chung, Joseph M Herman, Edward Y Kim, William Small, Nina A Mayr, Simon S Lo

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of hepatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Two years' experience with inspiration breath-hold in liver SBRT.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael I LockMichael I Lock, Department of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada.
Jonathan KleinMichael I Lock, Department of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada.
Hans T ChungMichael I Lock, Department of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada.
Joseph M HermanMichael I Lock, Department of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada.
Edward Y KimMichael I Lock, Department of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada.
William SmallMichael I Lock, Department of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada.
Nina A MayrMichael I Lock, Department of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada.
Simon S LoMichael I Lock, Department of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada.
University of Washington · USUniversity of Toronto · CALoyola University Chicago · USRadiation Oncology Associates · USWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Primary and metastatic liver cancer is an increasingly common and difficult to control disease entity. Radiation offers a non-invasive treatment alternative for these patients who often have few options and a poor prognosis. However, the anatomy and aggressiveness of liver cancer poses significant challenges such as accurate localization at simulation and treatment, management of motion and appropriate selection of dose regimen. This article aims to review the options available and provide information for the practical implementation and/or improvement of liver cancer radiation programs within the context of stereotactic body radiotherapy and image-guided radiotherapy guidelines. Specific patient inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented given the significant toxicity found in certain sub-populations treated with radiation. Indeed, certain sub-populations, such as those with tumor thrombosis or those with larger lesions treated with transarterial chemoembolization, have been shown to have significant improvements in outcome with the addition of radiation and merit special consideration. Implementing a liver radiation program requires three primary challenges to be addressed: (1) immobilization and motion management; (2) localization; and (3) dose regimen and constraint selection. Strategies to deal with motion include simple internal target volume (ITV) expansions, non-gated ITV reduction strategies, breath hold methods, and surrogate marker methods to enable gating or tracking. Localization of the tumor and organs-at-risk are addressed using contrast infusion techniques to take advantage of different normal liver and cancer vascular anatomy, imaging modalities, and margin management. Finally, a dose response has been demonstrated and dose regimens appear to be converging. A more uniform approach to treatment in terms of technique, dose selection and patient selection will allow us to study liver radiation in larger and, hopefully, multicenter randomized studies.

Indexed as

4DCTHepatocellular carcinomaImage-guided radiotherapyLiver metastasesStereotactic body radiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID28588749
PMCPMC5437609
OpenAlexW2615421389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.