Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33083649›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Acute Toxicities and Short-Term Patient Outcomes After Intensity-Modulated Proton Beam Radiation Therapy or Intensity-Modulated Photon Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Carcinoma: A Mayo Clinic Experience.

Ronik S Bhangoo, Todd A DeWees, Nathan Y Yu, Julia X Ding, Chenbin Liu, Michael A Golafshar, William G Rule, Sujay A Vora, Helen J Ross, Daniel H Ahn and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evidence-based indications for proton therapy in adults determined using the GRADE approach.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ronik S BhangooDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Todd A DeWeesBiostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Nathan Y YuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Julia X DingDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Chenbin LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Michael A GolafsharBiostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
William G RuleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Sujay A VoraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Helen J RossDivision of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Daniel H AhnDivision of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Staci E BeamerDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Dawn E JaroszewskiDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Christopher L HallemeierDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Wei LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Jonathan B AshmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Terence T SioDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Mayo Clinic Hospital · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USMayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIntensity modulated proton beam radiation therapy (IMPT) has a clinically significant dosimetric advantage over intensity modulated photon radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of patients with esophageal cancer, particularly for sparing the heart and lungs. We compared acute radiation therapy-related toxicities and short-term clinical outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer who received treatment with IMPT or IMRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of consecutive adult patients with esophageal cancer who underwent concurrent chemoradiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT in the definitive or neoadjuvant setting from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2018, with additional follow-up data collected through January 31, 2019. Treatment-related toxicities were evaluated per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4. Survival outcomes were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method.

resultsA total of 64 patients (32 per group) were included (median follow-up time: 10 months for IMPT patients vs 14 months for IMRT patients). The most common radiation therapy regimen was 45 Gy in 25 fractions, and 80% of patients received a simultaneous integrated boost to a median cumulative dose of 50 Gy. Similar numbers of IMPT patients (n = 15; 47%) and IMRT patients (n = 18; 56%) underwent surgery (

conclusionsIn our early experience, IMPT is a safe and effective treatment when administered as part of definitive or trimodality therapy. Longer follow-up is required to evaluate the effectiveness of IMPT.

Identifiers

PMID33083649
PMCPMC7557123
OpenAlexW3027878000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.