Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30684666›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2019

A Current Review of Spatial Fractionation: Back to the Future?

Cole Billena, Atif J Khan

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06980259 (Spatially Fractionated Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Soft Tissue Sarcoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 96 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT06980259 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Spatially Fractionated Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Soft Tissue Sarcoma:A Multicenter,Prospective, Phase II, Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorShandong Cancer Hospital and InstituteRan2025 to 2028Enrolled106ConditionsSoft Tissue Sarcoma (STS)ArmsSpatially Fractionated Radiotherapy, Conventional Radiotherapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

96 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 158 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cole BillenaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Atif J KhanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: khana7@mskcc.org.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spatially fractionated radiation therapy represents a significant departure from canonical thinking in radiation oncology despite having origins in the early 1900s. The original and most common implementation of spatially fractionated radiation therapy uses commercially available blocks or multileaf collimators to deliver a nonconfluent, sieve-like pattern of radiation to the target volume in a nonuniform dose distribution. Dosimetrically, this is parameterized by the ratio of the valley dose in cold spots to the peak dose in hot spots, or the valley-to-peak dose ratio. The radiobiologic mechanisms are postulated to involve radiation-induced bystander effects, microvascular alterations, and/or immunomodulation. Current indications include bulky or locally advanced disease that would not be amenable to conventional radiation or that has proved refractory to chemoradiation. Early-phase clinical trials have shown remarkable success, with some response rates >90% and minimal toxicity. This has promoted technological developments in 3-dimensional formats (LATTICE), micron-size beams (microbeam), and proton arrays. Nevertheless, more clinical and biological data are needed to specify ideal dosimetry parameters and to formulate robust clinical indications and guidelines for optimal standardized care.

Indexed as

Dose Fractionation, RadiationAnimalsBystander EffectClinical Trials as TopicHumansImmunomodulationMiceMicrovesselsNeoplasmsRadiation Oncology

Identifiers

PMID30684666
PMCPMC7443362
OpenAlexW2914877953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.