ArticleDigestion2020
Efficacy of Endoscopic Evaluation of Acute Radiation Esophagitis during Chemoradiotherapy with Proton Beam Therapy Boost for Esophageal Cancer.
Article in Digestion, 2020. 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.
- Dose Evaluation in 2-Phase Method for Advanced Esophageal Cancer by Hybrid Irradiation Techniques.International journal of particle therapy · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Exposure Doses of Elective Nodal Irradiation in Chemoradiotherapy for Advanced Esophageal Cancer.Cancers · 2023Article
- Article
- Radiation Esophagitis in a Patient with Oral Carcinoma and Bone Metastasis.Case reports in gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimTo evaluate the utility of endoscopy for assessing radiation esophagitis during chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with proton beam therapy (PBT) boost for esophageal cancer.
methodsBetween December 2012 and December 2016, 38 patients with esophageal cancer were treated with CRT with PBT boost. To evaluate radiation esophagitis, endoscopy was performed after administration of CRT with standard PBT boost (total dose 50-60 Gy relative biological effectiveness [RBE]). Radiation esophagitis was evaluated and classified into 5 newly developed endoscopic grades (Fukui Acute Radiation Esophagitis [FARE] grade). The additional PBT boost was then adjusted and delivered (2-20 Gy [RBE]) to a maximum total dose of 74.4 Gy (RBE) based on the degree of radiation esophagitis, probability of residual tumor, and patient's general condition. To evaluate the utility of endoscopic examination, the incidences of adverse events graded according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, version 4.0) were determined at the time of endoscopic examination after CRT with standard PBT boost (50-60 Gy [RBE]) and at the completion of treatment (60-74.4 Gy [RBE]), as well as during the 90 days from the beginning of treatment.
resultsThere was a significant correlation between FARE grade and CTCAE esophagitis grade (ρ = 0.48; p = 0.03). Moreover, endoscopy detected severe esophagitis in an asymptomatic patient. Radiation dose escalation was achieved without severe acute adverse events. There was no significant difference between the incidence of acute toxicity at the time of the CRT with standard PBT boost (50-60 Gy [RBE]) and the higher dose at the completion of treatment (60-74.4 Gy [RBE]), which suggests this dose escalation strategy is safe.
conclusionEndoscopic evaluation of radiation esophagitis using FARE grades was safely performed and useful for adjusting added radiation to ensure the safety of escalations in CRT with PBT boost for esophageal cancer.
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.