ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2019
Driving developments in UK oesophageal radiotherapy through the SCOPE trials.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of radiation dose on the efficacy of definitive chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer biology & therapy · 2023Pooled it
- Radiotherapy quality assurance in the PROTECT trial - a European randomised phase III-trial comparing proton and photon therapy in the treatment of patients with oesophageal cancer.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Trial
- Dose escalation based onRadiation oncology (London, England) · 2022Trial
- Dose-escalated radiotherapy with PET/CT based treatment planning in combination with induction and concurrent chemotherapy in locally advanced (uT3/T4) squamous cell cancer of the esophagus: mature results of a phase I/II trial.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Trial
- Article
- Addressing challenges in low-income and middle-income countries through novel radiotherapy research opportunities.The Lancet. Oncology · 2024Review
- Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT): a review of clinical outcomes-what is the clinical evidence for the most effective implementation?The British journal of radiology · 2022Review
- Marginal Gains and Clinical Trials - Improving and Influencing Practice.Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2022Article
- FIELDThe British journal of radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe SCOPE trials (SCOPE 1, NeoSCOPE and SCOPE 2) have been the backbone of oesophageal RT trials in the UK. Many changes in oesophageal RT techniques have taken place in this time. The SCOPE trials have, in addition to adopting these new techniques, been influential in aiding centres with their implementation. We discuss the progress made through the SCOPE trials and include details of a questionnaire sent to participating centres. to establish the role that trial participation played in RT changes in their centre.
methodsQuestionnaires were sent to 47 centres, 27 were returned.
results100% of centres stated their departmental protocol for TVD was based on the relevant SCOPE trial protocol. 4DCT use has increased from 42 to 71%. Type B planning algorithms, mandated in the NeoSCOPE trial, were used in 79.9% pre NeoSCOPE and now in 83.3%. 12.5% of centres were using a stomach filling protocol pre NeoSCOPE, now risen to 50%. CBCT was mandated for IGRT in the NeoSCOPE trial. 66.7% used this routinely pre NeoSCOPE/SCOPE 2 which has risen to 87.5% in the survey.
conclusionThe results of the questionnaires show how participation in national oesophageal RT trials has led to the adoption of newer RT techniques in UK centres, leading to better patient care.
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.