ArticleJournal of radiation oncology2017
Influence of radiation treatment technique on outcome and toxicity in anal cancer.
Article in Journal of radiation oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence, risk factors, and interventions for female sexual dysfunction after radiotherapy for anal cancer: a systematic review.British journal of cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Radiotherapy alone versus chemoradiotherapy for stage I anal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Pooled it
- Influence of radiation treatment technique (IMRT vs. 3D-RT) on acute toxicity and prognostic factors for survival for anal cancer.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Optimal Radiotherapy Dose in Anal Cancer: Trends in Prescription Dose and Association with Survival.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2021Article
- Article
- Improved treatment outcome and lower skin toxicity with intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. 3D conventional radiotherapy in anal cancer.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2020Article
- Prehabilitation for patient positioning: pelvic exercises assist in minimizing inter-fraction sacral slope variability during radiation therapy.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2019Article
- A multi-disciplinary model of survivorship care following definitive chemoradiation for anal cancer.BMC cancer · 2019Review
- Trends in intensity-modulated radiation therapy use for rectal cancer in the neoadjuvant setting: a National Cancer Database analysis.Radiation oncology journal · 2018Article
- 18F-FDG PET Predicts Hematologic Toxicity in Patients with Locally Advanced Anal Cancer Treated With Chemoradiation.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
- The case for radiotherapy in a Value based environment.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation OncologyArticle
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIntensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has largely supplanted three-dimensional conformal radiation (3D-CRT) for definitive anal cancer treatment due to decreased toxicity and potentially improved outcomes. Convincing data demonstrating its advantages, however, remain limited. We compared outcomes and toxicity with concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT vs 3D-CRT for anal cancer.
methodsWe performed a single-institution retrospective review of patients treated with IMRT or 3D-CRT as part of definitive mitomycin-C/5-fluorouricil-based chemoradiation for anal cancer from January 2003 to December 2012.
resultsOne hundred sixty-five patients were included, with 61 and 104 receiving IMRT and 3D-CRT, respectively. Overall, 92.7% had squamous cell carcinoma. The mean initial pelvic dose was 48.3 and 44 Gy for IMRT and 3D-CRT, respectively. Complete response, partial response, and disease progression rates were similar (IMRT 83.6, 8.2, 8.2%; 3D-CRT 85.6, 6.7, 7.7%;
conclusionThis report represents the largest series directly comparing concurrent chemotherapy with IMRT vs 3D-CRT for definitive treatment of anal cancer. IMRT significantly reduced acute and post-treatment toxicities and allowed for safe and effective pelvic dose escalation.
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.