Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31178346›Full record

ArticleClinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain))2019

Forward- and Inverse-Planned Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy in the CHHiP Trial: A Comparison of Dosimetry and Normal Tissue Toxicity.

O F Naismith, C Griffin, I Syndikus, C South, H Mayles, P Mayles, V Khoo, C Scrase, J Graham, S Hassan and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A comparison of a moderately hypofractionated IMRT planning technique used in a randomised UK external beam radiotherapy trial with an in-house technique for localised prostate cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
    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

13 authors.

O F NaismithRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
C GriffinThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. Electronic address: Clare.Griffin@icr.ac.uk.
I SyndikusClatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, UK.
C SouthRoyal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK.
H MaylesClatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, UK.
P MaylesClatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, UK.
V KhooRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
C ScraseIpswich Hospital, Ipswich, UK.
J GrahamBeacon Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK.
S HassanThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
E HallThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
D P DearnaleyRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
CHHiP Investigators

Funding

Cancer Research UK 10588Cancer Research UK 12518Cancer Research UK 7253Cancer Research UK C1491/A15955Cancer Research UK C1491/A9895Cancer Research UK C46/A10588Cancer Research UK C46/A2131Cancer Research UK C46/A3976Cancer Research UK SP2312/021Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe CHHiP (Conventional or Hypofractionated High-dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy In Prostate Cancer; CRUK/06/016) trial investigated hypofractionated radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer. Forward- (FP) or inverse-planned (IP) intensity-modulated techniques were permitted. Dose-volume histogram and toxicity data were compared to explore the effects of planning method. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn total, 337 participants with intermediate-risk disease and prospectively collected toxicity data were included. Patients were matched on prostate and rectum/bladder volumes and on radiotherapy dose for toxicity comparisons. The primary outcome was grade 2 or higher Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) bowel or bladder toxicity at 2 years.

resultsIP patients had smaller volumes of rectum irradiated to 50-70 Gy (P < 0.001); FP patients had smaller volumes of bladder irradiated to 74 Gy (P = 0.001). Acute grade 2 + bowel toxicity was worse with FP (27/53 [52%]; 11/53 [21%] IP; P = 0.0002); with no significant differences in acute urinary toxicity. At 2 years, RTOG grade 2 + bowel toxicity rates were FP 0/53 and IP 2/53 and RTOG grade 2 + bladder rates were FP 0/54 and IP 1/57.

conclusionsSignificant differences were found between dose-volume histograms from FP and IP methods. IP may result in small reductions in acute bowel toxicity but both techniques were associated with low rates of late radiotherapy side-effects.

Indexed as

Radiation Dose HypofractionationAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedRadiometryRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedDVHforward planningintensity-modulated radiotherapyinverse planningprostate cancertoxicity

Identifiers

PMID31178346
PMCPMC6688097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.