Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28740924›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Sociodemographic disparities in the utilization of proton therapy for prostate cancer at an urban academic center.

Kristina D Woodhouse, Wei-Ting Hwang, Neha Vapiwala, Akansha Jain, Xingmei Wang, Stefan Both, Meera Shah, Marquise Frazier, Peter Gabriel, John P Christodouleas and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Proton Therapy Utilization Among Adult Cancer Patients.International journal of particle therapy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

12 authors.

Kristina D WoodhouseDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Wei-Ting HwangDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Neha VapiwalaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Akansha JainDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Xingmei WangDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Stefan BothDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Meera ShahEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Marquise FrazierDepartment of Radiation Therapy, Howard University, Washington, District of Columbia.
Peter GabrielDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
John P ChristodouleasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Zelig TochnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Curtiland DevilleDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CAN CTR SUPPORT GRANTP30CA016520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SHELLEY L BERGER · 1985 to 2026
$222.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016520
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDespite increasing use, proton therapy (PT) remains a relatively limited resource. The purpose of this study was to assess clinical and demographic differences in PT use for prostate cancer compared to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at a single institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (N = 633) who underwent definitive radiation therapy between 2010 and 2015 were divided into PT (n = 508) and IMRT (n = 125) comparison groups and compared using χ

resultsThe PT and IMRT cohorts varied by age, race, poverty, distance, treatment year, and treating physician. Patients who underwent IMRT were more likely to be older (mean age, 66 vs. 68 years), black (51% vs. 75%), and living in poverty or close to the facility (mean distance between residence and facility, 90 vs. 21 miles;

conclusionSociodemographic disparities exist in PT use for prostate cancer at an urban academic institution. Further investigation of potential barriers to access is warranted to ensure equitable distribution across all demographic groups.

Identifiers

PMID28740924
PMCPMC5514248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.