Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31152306›Full record

ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2020

Hypofractionation vs. conventional radiotherapy fractionation in the conservative treatment of T1 glottic cancer: a prospective cohort study.

B G Salas-Salas, D J Domínguez-Nuez, R Cabrera, L Ferrera-Alayón, M Lloret, P C Lara

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. The outcome of early-stage glottic carcinoma patients treated with radiotherapy: Egyptian National Cancer Institute (NCI-Egypt) experience.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

B G Salas-SalasRadiation Oncology Department, Hospital Dr. Negrín, 35070, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. barsalas@ucm.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4336-4045
D J Domínguez-NuezUniversidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
R CabreraRadiation Oncology Department, Hospital Dr. Negrín, 35070, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
L Ferrera-AlayónRadiation Oncology Department, Hospital Dr. Negrín, 35070, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
M LloretRadiation Oncology Department, Hospital Dr. Negrín, 35070, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
P C LaraUniversidad Fernando Pessoa Canarias, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Doctor Negrín · ESUniversidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria · ESHospital Universitario Insular de Gran Canaria · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDefinitive radiotherapy is an effective single-modality in T1 glottic cancer. Hypofractionated schemes could offer excellent results in a shorter treatment period. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and toxicity comparing conventional vs. hypofractionated radiotherapy treatment in T1N0M0-glottic cancer. PATIENTS AND

methodsBetween Jan-1st, 2005 and August-1st, 2017, in a prospective cohort study, with 10-year follow-up, 138 patients were treated with conventional schedule 2 Gy/day, total dose 70 Gy/7 weeks (N = 71) or hypofractionated schedule 2, 2-2, 25 Gy/day, total dose 63, 8-63 Gy/5, 5 weeks (N = 67). Endpoints were clinical-response rate, local relapse-free survival (LRFS), laryngectomy-free survival (LFS), toxicity rates, relapse-free survival (RFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), second tumour-free survival (2TFS), and overall survival (OS).

resultsAll patients showed a complete clinical response. No differences were found for LRFS (p = 0.869), LFS (p = 0.975), RFS (p = 0.767), MFS (p = 0.601), 2TFS (p = 0.293), or OS (p = 0.685). Acute toxicity for skin and mucosae was similar (p = 0.550 and p = 0.698). Acute laryngeal toxicity was higher in the hypofractionation group (p = 0.004), due to an increase in slight moderate grade. No differences in late laryngeal edema were found (p = 0.989).

conclusionRadiotherapy offers high rate survival, local control, and larynx preservation after 5-10-year follow-up. A hypofractionation could be preferable, since it offers the same results as conventional with fewer treatment sessions.

Indexed as

Radiation Dose HypofractionationAgedCarcinoma, Squamous CellConservative TreatmentFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlottisHumansLaryngeal NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSurvival RateTreatment OutcomeConservative treatmentLarynx cancerLocal controlOverall survivalRadiotherapy schemeT1

Identifiers

PMID31152306
OpenAlexW2947816945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.