Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31351194›Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2019

Prospective Assessment of Patient-Reported Dry Eye Syndrome After Whole Brain Radiation.

Kyle Wang, Rachel Tobillo, Panayiotis Mavroidis, Ryan Pappafotis, Kevin A Pearlstein, Dominic H Moon, Zahra M Mahbooba, Allison M Deal, Jordan A Holmes, Nathan C Sheets and 8 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Progress in radiotherapy for small-cell lung cancer.Precision radiation oncology · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Hybrid split-arc partial-field volumetric modulated arc therapy: an improved beam arrangement for linear accelerator-based hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation therapy.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022
    Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

18 authors.

Kyle WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Electronic address: kwang545@gmail.com.
Rachel TobilloFlorida Atlantic University College of Medicine, Boca Raton, Florida.
Panayiotis MavroidisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Ryan PappafotisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Kevin A PearlsteinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Dominic H MoonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Zahra M MahboobaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Allison M DealLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center Biostatistics Core, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Jordan A HolmesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Nathan C SheetsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Mohit S KasibhatlaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Heather D PacholkeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Trevor J RoyceDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Ashley A WeinerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Colette J ShenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Timothy M ZagarNortheastern Radiation Oncology, Glens Falls, New York.
Lawrence B MarksDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Bhishamjit S CheraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Funding

Virology Research Program (Program 4)P30CA016086 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Deborah F. Tate · 1985 to 2026
$201.5M
UNC Oncology K12K12CA120780 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI WILLIAM Y. KIM · 2007 to 2026
$9.6M
NCI NIH HHS K12 CA120780NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDry eye is not typically considered a toxicity of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). We analyzed dry eye syndrome as part of a prospective study of patient-reported outcomes after WBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients receiving WBRT to 25 to 40 Gy were enrolled on a study with dry mouth as the primary endpoint and dry eye syndrome as a secondary endpoint. Patients received 3-dimensional WBRT using opposed lateral fields. Per standard practice, lacrimal glands were not prospectively delineated. Patients completed the Subjective Evaluation of Symptom of Dryness (SESoD, scored 0-4, with higher scores representing worse dry eye symptoms) at baseline, immediately after WBRT (EndRT), and at 1 month (1M), 3 months, and 6 months. Patients with baseline SESoD ≥3 (moderate dry eye) were excluded. The endpoints analyzed were ≥1-point and ≥2-point increase in SESoD score at 1M. Lacrimal glands were retrospectively delineated with fused magnetic resonance imaging scans.

resultsOne hundred patients were enrolled, 70 were eligible for analysis, and 54 were evaluable at 1M. Median bilateral lacrimal V20Gy was 79%. At 1M, 17 patients (32%) had a ≥1-point increase in SESoD score, and 13 (24%) a ≥2-point increase. Lacrimal doses appeared to be associated with an increase in SESoD score of both ≥1 point (V10Gy: P = .042, odds ratio [OR] 1.09/%; V20Gy: P = .071, OR 1.03/%) and ≥2 points (V10Gy: P = .038, OR 1.15/%; V20Gy: P = .063, OR 1.04/%). The proportion with increase in dry eye symptoms at 1M for lacrimal V20Gy ≥79% versus <79% was 46% versus 15%, respectively, for ≥1 point SESoD increase (P = .02) and 36% versus 12%, respectively, for ≥2 point SESoD increase (P = .056).

conclusionsDry eye appears to be a relatively common, dose/volume-dependent acute toxicity of WBRT. Minimization of lacrimal gland dose may reduce this toxicity, and patients should be counseled regarding the existence of this potential side effect and treatments for dry eye.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrain NeoplasmsCranial IrradiationDry Eye SyndromesFemaleHumansLacrimal ApparatusMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRadiotherapy DosageXerostomia

Identifiers

PMID31351194
PMCPMC7384248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.