ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018
Effectiveness of tomotherapy vs linear accelerator image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized pharyngeal cancer treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a Taiwanese population-based propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Individualization of clinical target volume delineation in eccentric nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a prospective comparative study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Precision radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Precision radiation oncology · 2024Review
- Helical tomotherapy and two types of volumetric modulated arc therapy: dosimetric and clinical comparison for several cancer sites.Radiological physics and technology · 2023Article
- Observational
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study used a population-based propensity score (PS)-matched analysis to compare the effectiveness of tomotherapy-based image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (referred to as T-IMRT) with that of linear accelerator based (referred to as L-IMRT) for clinically localized pharyngeal cancer (LPC, divided into nasopharyngeal cancer and non-nasopharyngeal cancer) with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).
methodsEligible LPC patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2014 were identified among all citizens in Taiwan from the Health and Welfare Data Science Center database. A PS-matched sample based on the PS estimated from the covariables of interest was constructed to compare the effectiveness of T-IMRT with L-IMRT. In the primary analysis, overall survival (OS) was compared for assessment of effectiveness. We also evaluated freedom from local regional recurrence and pharyngeal cancer-specific survival and performed supplementary analyses.
resultsThe study population included 960 patients equally divided into two groups. OS did not differ significantly between the T-IMRT and L-IMRT groups (hazard ratio for death: 0.82, p = 0.15, 5-year OS rate: 79 and 74% for T-IMRT and L-IMRT, respectively), and there were no significant differences in the other endpoints or supplementary analyses.
conclusionFor LPC patients treated with definitive CCRT, we found no significant difference in disease control or survival between the T-IMRT and L-IMRT groups. However, further studies, especially randomized trials or studies focusing on other dimensions, such as quality of life, are needed. Advances in knowledge: We provide the first population-based study, as well as the largest study, on the clinical effectiveness of T-IMRT compared with L-IMRT in conjunction with CCRT in LPC patients.
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.