Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31130076›Full record

ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment

Impact of Esophageal Motion on Dosimetry and Toxicity With Thoracic Radiation Therapy.

Hao Gao, Chris R Kelsey, John Boyle, Tianyi Xie, Suzanne Catalano, Xiaofei Wang, Fang-Fang Yin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Hao Gao1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1064-2149
Chris R Kelsey1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
John Boyle2 Essentia Health Radiation Oncology, Northwest Wisconsin Cancer Center, Ashland, WI, USA.
Tianyi Xie1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Suzanne Catalano1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Xiaofei Wang3 Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Fang-Fang Yin1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Duke Medical Center · USDuke University · USEssentia Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the impact of intra- and inter-fractional esophageal motion on dosimetry and observed toxicity in a phase I dose escalation study of accelerated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy for locally advanced lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients underwent computed tomography imaging for radiotherapy treatment planning (CT1 and 4DCT1) and at 2 weeks (CT2 and 4DCT2) and 5 weeks (CT3 and 4DCT3) after initiating treatment. Each computed tomography scan consisted of 10-phase 4DCTs in addition to a static free-breathing or breath-hold computed tomography. The esophagus was independently contoured on all computed tomographies and 4DCTs. Both CT2 and CT3 were rigidly registered with CT1 and doses were recalculated using the original intensity-modulated radiation therapy plan based on CT1 to assess the impact of interfractional motion on esophageal dosimetry. Similarly, 4DCT1 data sets were rigidly registered with CT1 to assess the impact of intrafractional motion. The motion was characterized based on the statistical analysis of slice-by-slice center shifts (after registration) for the upper, middle, and lower esophageal regions, respectively. For the dosimetric analysis, the following quantities were calculated and assessed for correlation with toxicity grade: the percent volumes of esophagus that received at least 20 Gy (V20) and 60 Gy (V60), maximum esophageal dose, equivalent uniform dose, and normal tissue complication probability.

resultsThe interfractional center shifts were 4.4 ± 1.7 mm, 5.5 ± 2.0 mm and 4.9 ± 2.1 mm for the upper, middle, and lower esophageal regions, respectively, while the intrafractional center shifts were 0.6 ± 0.4 mm, 0.7 ± 0.7 mm, and 0.9 ± 0.7 mm, respectively. The mean V60 (and corresponding normal tissue complication probability) values estimated from the interfractional motion analysis were 7.8% (10%), 4.6% (7.5%), 7.5% (8.6%), and 31% (26%) for grade 0, grade 1, grade 2, and grade 3 toxicities, respectively.

conclusionsInterfractional esophageal motion is significantly larger than intrafractional motion. The mean values of V60 and corresponding normal tissue complication probability, incorporating interfractional esophageal motion, correlated positively with esophageal toxicity grade.

Indexed as

EsophagusMotionRadiometryRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedFemaleFour-Dimensional Computed TomographyHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted4D computed tomography4D CTesophageal motionIMRTlung cancer

Identifiers

PMID31130076
PMCPMC6537299
OpenAlexW2946553417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.