Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29114596›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Clinical outcomes of intensity modulated proton therapy and concurrent chemotherapy in esophageal carcinoma: a single institutional experience.

Anussara Prayongrat, Cai Xu, Heng Li, Steven H Lin

Open access · goldAbstract 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 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Randomized Phase IIB Trial of Proton Beam Therapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020
    Trial
  3. Advances in radiotherapy in the treatment of esophageal cancer.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Current status and application of proton therapy for esophageal cancer.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2021
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The emerging role of proton therapy for esophagus cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anussara PrayongratDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Cai XuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Heng LiDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Steven H LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USChulalongkorn University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIntensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is an emerging advanced radiation technique. Although dosimetric studies demonstrate the superiority of IMPT for improving target conformity and reducing unnecessary dose to critical normal tissues, clinical experience is limited. We aim to describe our preliminary experience implementing IMPT concurrently with chemotherapy in esophageal carcinoma (EC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: From May 2011 through February 2016, 19 patients with EC (median age, 73 years) were treated with IMPT using 180 to 250 MV protons with a median dose of 50.4 Gy relative biological effectiveness in 28 fractions concurrently with chemotherapy. Beam arrangement was most commonly in the posteroanterior and bilateral posterior oblique beams. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess survival outcomes. Treatment-related toxicities were evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.

resultsSingle-field and multifield optimization was performed in 13 and 6 patients, respectively. The average gross tumor volume was 69.1 cm

conclusionsIMPT is an effective treatment for EC, with high tumor response, good local control, and acceptable acute toxicity.

Identifiers

PMID29114596
PMCPMC5605301
OpenAlexW2624994933

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.