ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2020
Effect of lung volume on helical radiotherapy in esophageal cancer: are there predictive factors to achieve acceptable lung doses?
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A volume-controlled, anatomy-driven autoplanning strategy for whole-pelvic volumetric modulated arc therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Personalized intensity modulation radiation therapy auto-planning for esophageal cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Innovative regression model-based decision support tool for optimizing radiotherapy techniques in thoracic esophageal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Regression models for predicting physical and EQDRadiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Article
- Investigation of Predictors to Achieve Acceptable Lung Dose in T-Shaped Upper and Middle Esophageal Cancer With IMRT and VMAT.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe dose received by the lungs in radiotherapy (RT) is affected by the patient's current lung volume. The presence of predictive factors and cut-off points were investigated to achieve acceptable lung doses in esophageal cancer (EC) treatment.
methodsVirtual RT volumes of supracarinal EC were delineated. RT plans were designed with standard criteria in the TomoTherapy planning system (TomoTherapy Inc., Madison, WI, USA). The total dose was 50.4 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction). ROC (Receiver operating characteristic) analysis and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed.
resultsThere was a total of 65 patient plans included. ROC analysis showed that lung/PTV (Planning target volume) volume ratio (AUC [Area under curve]: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.83-0.99, p = 0.000) and bilateral lung volume (AUC: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.92, p = 0.000) have diagnostic power to predict the suitability of RT plans according to QUANTEC (Quantitative Analyses of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic) for lung dose constraints. The cut-off points of 7 and 3500 cc were selected for lung/PTV ratio and bilateral lung volume, respectively. The effect of the cut-off points on the dose data was assessed with the Mann-Whitney U test. The mean lung and heart doses, lung V5, V15, and V20, as well as heart V5, V20, V30, and V45 values were found to be lower in both groups separated by cut-off points (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe lung/PTV ratio ≥7 and bilateral lung volume ≥3500 cc cut-off points are predictive of whether TomoTherapy plans may meet QUANTEC lung dose limits in patients with supracarinal esophageal cancer. The patients with lung/PTV ratio and lung volume above these cut-off points may be candidates for treatment with TomoTherapy.
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.