ArticleJournal of radiation research2018
Comparison of the average surviving fraction model with the integral biologically effective dose model for an optimal irradiation scheme.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of treatment of early-stage breast cancer among Nurses' Health Study participants and other Medicare beneficiaries.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, we compare two radiation effect models: the average surviving fraction (ASF) model and the integral biologically effective dose (IBED) model for deriving the optimal irradiation scheme and show the superiority of ASF. Minimizing the effect on an organ at risk (OAR) is important in radiotherapy. The biologically effective dose (BED) model is widely used to estimate the effect on the tumor or on the OAR, for a fixed value of dose. However, this is not always appropriate because the dose is not a single value but is distributed. The IBED and ASF models are proposed under the assumption that the irradiation is distributed. Although the IBED and ASF models are essentially equivalent for deriving the optimal irradiation scheme in the case of uniform distribution, they are not equivalent in the case of non-uniform distribution. We evaluate the differences between them for two types of cancers: high α/β ratio cancer (e.g. lung) and low α/β ratio cancer (e.g. prostate), and for various distributions i.e. various dose-volume histograms. When we adopt the IBED model, the optimal number of fractions for low α/β ratio cancers is reasonable, but for high α/β ratio cancers or for some DVHs it is extremely large. However, for the ASF model, the results keep within the range used in clinical practice for both low and high α/β ratio cancers and for most DVHs. These results indicate that the ASF model is more robust for constructing the optimal irradiation regimen than the IBED model.
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.