Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33180633›Full record

ArticleJCO global oncology2020

Preliminary Experience of Treating Children and Young Adults With Image-Guided Proton Beam Therapy in India.

Srinivas Chilukuri, Nagarjuna Burela, Ramya Uppuluri, D Indumathi, Sapna Nangia, Pankaj Kumar Panda, Dayananda Sharma Shamurailatpam, Revathi Raj, Thirumalai Raja, Rakesh Jalali

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO global oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic review of volumetric image guidance in proton therapy.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Srinivas ChilukuriApollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0491-7935
Nagarjuna BurelaApollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India.
Ramya UppuluriApollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India.
D IndumathiApollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India.
Sapna NangiaApollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000-0003-1712-7879
Pankaj Kumar PandaApollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000-0003-2804-8033
Dayananda Sharma ShamurailatpamApollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000-0002-4249-3574
Revathi RajApollo Specialty Hospital, Chennai, India.
Thirumalai RajaApollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India.
Rakesh JalaliApollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000-0002-0318-5536
Apollo Proton Cancer Centre · INApollo Hospitals · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProton beam therapy (PBT) has been a preferred modality in pediatric malignancies requiring radiotherapy. We report our preliminary experience of treating consecutive patients younger than 25 years with image-guided pencil beam scanning PBT from the first and only center on the Indian subcontinent.

methodsPatients were selected for PBT on the basis of a multidisciplinary tumor board decision. Patient demographic data, as well as tumor and treatment-related characteristics of the cohort, were captured. Patient and treatment-related factors and their association with acute toxicities were analyzed using univariable and multivariable analyses.

resultsForty-seven patients (27 with CNS and 20 with non-CNS tumors) with a median age of 9 years (range, 2-25 years) were evaluated. Most common diagnoses were ependymoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, and glioma. Seventy-seven percent of patients traveled more than 500 km, and 70% of them lived in metropolitan cities. Forty-nine percent of patients had recurrent disease at presentation, and 15% had received a previous course of radiation. The median dose delivered was 54.8 cobalt gray equivalents (range, 40.0-70.4 cobalt gray equivalents) to a median clinical target volume of 175 mL (range, 18.7-3,083.0 mL), with 34% of patients requiring concurrent chemotherapy (CCT). Acute grade 2 and grade 3 dermatitis, mucositis, and hematologic toxicity was noted in 45% and 2%, 34% and 0%, and 38% and 30% of patients, respectively. Grade 2 fatigue was noted in 26% of patients. On multivariable analysis, for CNS tumors, both CCT and craniospinal irradiation were independently associated with ≥ 2 grade hematologic toxicity, whereas among non-CNS tumors, a clinical target volume > 150 mL was associated with ≥ 2 grade fatigue, head and neck irradiation was associated with ≥ 2 grade mucositis, and CCT was associated with grade ≥ 2 hematologic toxicity.

conclusionThis study demonstrates safe implementation of a PBT program for children and young adults on the Indian subcontinent. Image-guided pencil beam scanning PBT in judiciously selected patients is feasible and can be delivered with acceptable acute toxicities.

Indexed as

Craniospinal IrradiationEpendymomaProton TherapyRhabdomyosarcomaAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolHumansIndiaYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33180633
PMCPMC7713582
OpenAlexW3105783031

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.