Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32097507›Full record

ArticleCancer2020

Outcomes and toxicities of definitive radiotherapy and reirradiation using 3-dimensional conformal or intensity-modulated (pencil beam) proton therapy for patients with nasal cavity and paranasal sinus malignancies.

Ming Fan, Jung Julie Kang, Anna Lee, Dan Fan, Huili Wang, Sarin Kitpanit, Pamela Fox, Kevin Sine, Dennis Mah, Sean M McBride and 11 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Doughnut-shaped bone lesions onAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

21 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ming FanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0001-8676-2716
Jung Julie KangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0001-9773-5481
Anna LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Dan FanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0003-1197-1737
Huili WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0002-6851-3529
Sarin KitpanitDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Pamela FoxProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey.
Kevin SineProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey.
Dennis MahProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey.
Sean M McBrideDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Chiaojung Jillian TsaiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Nadeem RiazDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Lara A DunnDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Eric J ShermanDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0002-4960-4783
Loren MichelDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Bhuvanesh SinghDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Ian GanlyDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Richard J WongDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Jay O BoyleDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Marc A CohenDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Nancy Y LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USProCure (United States) · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProton therapy (PT) improves outcomes in patients with nasal cavity (NC) and paranasal sinus (PNS) cancers. Herein, the authors have reported to their knowledge the largest series to date using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in the treatment of these patients.

methodsBetween 2013 and 2018, a total of 86 consecutive patients (68 of whom were radiation-naive and 18 of whom were reirradiated) received PT to median doses of 70 grays and 67 grays relative biological effectiveness, respectively. Approximately 53% received IMPT.

resultsThe median follow-up was 23.4 months (range, 1.7-69.3 months) for all patients and 28.1 months (range, 2.3-69.3 months) for surviving patients. The 2-year local control (LC), distant control, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates were 83%, 84%, 74%, and 81%, respectively, for radiation-naive patients and 77%, 80%, 54%, and 66%, respectively for reirradiated patients. Among radiation-naive patients, when compared with 3-dimensional conformal proton technique, IMPT significantly improved LC (91% vs 72%; P < .01) and independently predicted LC (hazard ratio, 0.14; P = .01). Sixteen radiation-naive patients (24%) experienced acute grade 3 toxicities; 4 (6%) experienced late grade 3 toxicities (osteoradionecrosis, vision loss, soft-tissue necrosis, and soft tissue fibrosis) (grading was performed according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 5.0]). Slightly inferior LC was noted for patients undergoing reirradiation with higher complications: 11% experienced late grade 3 toxicities (facial pain and brain necrosis). Patients treated with reirradiation had more grade 1 to 2 radionecrosis than radiation-naive patients (brain: 33% vs 7% and osteoradionecrosis: 17% vs 3%).

conclusionsPT achieved remarkable LC for patients with nasal cavity and paranasal sinus cancers with lower grade 3 toxicities relative to historical reports. IMPT has the potential to improve the therapeutic ratio in these malignancies and is worthy of further investigation.

Indexed as

Proton TherapyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNasal CavityNose NeoplasmsParanasal Sinus NeoplasmsRadiation InjuriesSurvival AnalysisTreatment Outcomenasal cavityparanasal sinuspencil beam proton therapyradiotherapyreirradiationtoxicity

Identifiers

PMID32097507
PMCPMC7304541
OpenAlexW3007733928

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.