Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30307603›Full record

ReviewCancer2018

Clinical trials involving carbon-ion radiation therapy and the path forward.

Ann A Lazar, Reinhard Schulte, Bruce Faddegon, Eleanor A Blakely, Mack Roach

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Radiotherapy combined with immunotherapy: the dawn of cancer treatment.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Use of Multi-Site Radiation Therapy for Systemic Disease Control.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. The 20th Gray lecture 2019: health and heavy ions.The British journal of radiology · 2020
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ann A LazarDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California.
Reinhard SchulteDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California.
Bruce FaddegonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California.
Eleanor A BlakelyDivision of Biological Systems and Engineering, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California.
Mack RoachDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California.
University of California, San Francisco · USLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory · US

Funding

NAPTA: Optimizing clinical trial design & delivery of particle therapy for cancerP20CA183640 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI BLAKELY, ELEANOR A, ROACH, MACK · 2015 to 2016
$997k
AbbVie BiotherapeuticsBristol-Myers SquibbNCI NIH HHS P20 CA183640US National Institutes of Health P20 Planning 5P20CA183640-02US National Institutes of Health P20 Planning DEAC02-05CH11231
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To describe the international landscape of clinical trials in carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT), the authors reviewed the current status of 63 ongoing clinical trials (median, 47 participants) involving CIRT identified from the US clinicaltrials.gov trial registry and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Registry. The objectives were to evaluate the potential for these trials to define the role of this modality in the treatment of specific cancer types and identify the major challenges and opportunities to advance this technology. A significant body of literature suggested the potential for advantageous dose distributions and, in preclinical biologic studies, the enhanced effectiveness for CIRT compared with photons and protons. In addition, clinical evidence from phase I/II trials, although limited, indicated the potential for CIRT to improve cancer outcomes. However, current high-level phase III randomized clinical trial evidence does not exist. Although there has been an increase in the number of trials investigating CIRT since 2010, and the number of countries and sites offering CIRT is slowly growing, this progress has excluded other countries. Several recommendations are proposed to study this modality to accelerate progress in the field, including: 1) increasing the number of multinational randomized clinical trials, 2) leveraging the existing CIRT facilities to launch larger multinational trials directed at common cancers combined with high-level quality assurance; and 3) developing more compact and less expensive next-generation treatment systems integrated with radiobiologic research and preclinical testing.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase I as TopicClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicHeavy Ion RadiotherapyHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicNeoplasmsProgression-Free SurvivalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegistriesSample SizeTreatment Outcomecarbonclinical trialsheavy-ion radiotherapyionsparticle therapy

Identifiers

PMID30307603
PMCPMC6540799
OpenAlexW2897747977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.