Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31980834›Full record

ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2020

Improved treatment outcome and lower skin toxicity with intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. 3D conventional radiotherapy in anal cancer.

Matthias Sauter, Norbert Lombriser, Simon Bütikofer, Georg Keilholz, Helmut Kranzbühler, Henriette Heinrich, Gerhard Rogler, Stephan R Vavricka, Benjamin Misselwitz

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthias SauterDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich University, Zurich, Switzerland. Ma_sauter@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6921-3958
Norbert LombriserDivision of Radio-Oncology, Triemli Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Simon BütikoferDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich University, Zurich, Switzerland.
Georg KeilholzDivision of Radio-Oncology, Triemli Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Helmut KranzbühlerDivision of Radio-Oncology, Triemli Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Henriette HeinrichDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich University, Zurich, Switzerland.
Gerhard RoglerDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich University, Zurich, Switzerland.
Stephan R VavrickaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich University, Zurich, Switzerland.
Benjamin MisselwitzDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich University, Zurich, Switzerland.
Triemli Hospital · CHUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity Hospital of Basel · CHUniversity Hospital of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRadiochemotherapy is the standard treatment for anal carcinoma (ACa). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has been introduced, allowing focused irradiation of the tumor area. Whether physical benefits of IMRT translate to clinical benefits has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed data from 82 patients with newly diagnosed ACa. Patients treated with IMRT were compared with previous patients treated with conventional three-dimensional computational radiotherapy (3D-CRT). The influence of IMRT on complete remission and acute and chronic side effects was analyzed in univariate and multivariate analyses.

results39/40 patients treated with IMRT were in complete remission after 1 year compared to 31/39 patients treated with 3D-CRT (p = 0.014). Multivariate analysis confirmed tumor T stage as well as lack of IMRT treatment as risk factors for persistent tumor at 6 months. No significant benefits of IMRT were apparent at later timepoints (median follow up 52 months, IQR: 31.5-71.8 months). Patients treated with IMRT had a significantly lower degree of skin toxicity (median 2 vs. 3 in a scale ranging from 0 to 3, p = 0.00092). Rates of hematological toxicity/proctitis were not reduced and rates of acute diarrhea increased (p = 0.034). Median length of hospitalization tended to be shorter in patients treated with IMRT (n. s.).

conclusionWe present a real-world experience of shifting radiation technique from conventional 3D-CRT to IMRT. IMRT patients had better tumor control at 1 year and lower degrees of skin toxicity. Our data indicate that IMRT can enable therapies with lower side effects with equal or better oncological results for patients with ACa.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnus NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantCombined Modality TherapyFemaleFluorouracilHumansInfusions, IntravenousLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRadiation InjuriesRadiodermatitisFluorouracilAnal carcinomaIMRTLegth of hospitalizationRadiotherapySide effects

Identifiers

PMID31980834
OpenAlexW3002838703

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.