Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29279949›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2018

Re-irradiation with curative intent in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a national survey of usual practice on behalf of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO).

Marta Maddalo, Pierluigi Bonomo, Liliana Belgioia, Almalina Bacigalupo, Vittorio Donato, Daniela Alterio, Ester Orlandi, Angela Argenone, Anna Merlotti, Daniela Musio and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

16 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

Marta MaddaloRadiation Oncology Department, Università di Brescia-Istituto del Radio "O. Alberti" Spedali Civili di Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Pierluigi BonomoRadiation Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Largo G. Alessandro Brambilla, 3, 50134, Firenze, Italy. bonomopierlu@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8999-5208
Liliana BelgioiaRadiation Oncology Department, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino-Università di Genova, Genova, Italy.
Almalina BacigalupoRadiation Oncology Department, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino-Università di Genova, Genova, Italy.
Vittorio DonatoRadiation Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliera San Camillo-Forlanini, Roma, Italy.
Daniela AlterioRadiation Oncology Department, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milano, Italy.
Ester OrlandiRadiation Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS-Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy.
Angela ArgenoneRadiation Oncology Department, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCSS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Anna MerlottiRadiation Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy.
Daniela MusioRadiation Oncology Department, Ospedale Policlinico Umberto I, Roma, Italy.
Marianna TrignaniRadiation Oncology Department, Ospedale Clinicizzato SS. Annunziata, Chieti, Italy.
Stefano UrsinoRadiation Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Stefano ArcangeliRadiation Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliera San Camillo-Forlanini, Roma, Italy.
Carlo FurlanRadiation Oncology Department, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano, Aviano, Italy.
Mattia Falchetto OstiRadiation Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliera Sant'Andrea, Roma, Italy.
Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO)
Azienda Ospedaliera San Camillo-Forlanini · ITOspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Sant'Andrea · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana · ITAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITAzienda Sanitaria Ospedaliera S.Croce e Carle Cuneo · ITAzienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia · ITCentro di Riferimento Oncologico · ITEuropean Institute of Oncology · ITFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori · ITIstituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · ITOspedale SS. Annunziata · ITPoliclinico Umberto I · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo report the results of a national survey investigating the pattern of practice of curative re-irradiation (ReRT) for recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

methodsIn March 2016, a 22-item, 4-section questionnaire was sent to all Italian Radiation Oncology centers. Sections were focused on assessing the expertise level of each center and collecting specific information on reRT prescription modalities in the adjuvant and definitive settings.

resultsOverall, 77 centers completed the survey. The majority (50/77, 64.9%) of participating radiation oncologists were senior consultants (> 10 years of experience). Of the responding centers, 63 (81.8%) performed curative ReRT, while 14 (18.1%) did not, mainly (5/14, 35.7%) due to the avoidance of severe toxicity. The use of adjuvant ReRT was reported by less than half of the interviewed radiation oncologists (36/77, 46.7%). In case of unresectable local recurrence, definitive ReRT was claimed to be adopted in 55/77 (71.4%) for non-nasopharyngeal and 47/77 (61%) for nasopharyngeal cancer. The preferred treatment technique was Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) followed by Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). When IMRT was applied, the most common (19/55 responders, 34.5%) selection of treatment volume consisted of the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) + 0.5 cm margin to account for microscopic disease.

conclusionDespite the absence of definitive evidence-based recommendations, a possible consideration for ReRT in case of unresectable recurrent head and neck cancer was reported by over 80% of radiation oncologists taking part in the national survey.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansItalyNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Radiation OncologyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRe-IrradiationSquamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and NeckSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical practice guidelinesHead and Neck CancerRadiation therapyRe-irradiationSquamous cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID29279949
OpenAlexW2778252692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.