Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33277960›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021

Defining the dose-volume criteria for laryngeal sparing in locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer utilizing split-field IMRT, whole-field IMRT and VMAT.

Christopher Wilke, Vinita Takiar, He Wang, Amy C Moreno, Shih-Ming Samuel Tung, Sean R Quinlan-Davidson, Adam S Garden, David I Rosenthal, Clifton D Fuller, Gary B Gunn and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher WilkeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4147-6040
Vinita TakiarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
He WangDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4904-531X
Amy C MorenoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Shih-Ming Samuel TungDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Sean R Quinlan-DavidsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Adam S GardenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
David I RosenthalDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Clifton D FullerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Gary B GunnDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Jay P ReddyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
William H MorrisonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Congjun WangDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
George ZhaoDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Katherine A HutchesonDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Jack PhanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5977-6004
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USHealth First · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Targeting the p53 pathway for reversal of oral premalignancyP50CA097007 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI MYERS, JEFFREY NICHOLAS · 2002 to 2012
$26.1M
Using Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) to Establish Objective Clinical Outcome Measures for Mandibular OsteoradionecrosisR01DE025248 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI LAI, STEPHEN Y · 2016 to 2020
$2.9M
Longitudinal Spatial-Nonspatial Decision Support for Competing Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancer TherapyR01CA258827 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI CANAHUATE, GUADALUPE, FULLER, CLIFTON DAVID · 2021 to 2025
$2.9M
SMART-ACT: Spatial Methodologic Approaches for Risk Assessment and Therapeutic Adaptation in Cancer TreatmentR01CA214825 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI CANAHUATE, GUADALUPE, FULLER, CLIFTON DAVID · 2017 to 2019
$1.1M
imaging Radiation-Associated Dysphagia (iRAD)R01CA218148 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI FULLER, CLIFTON DAVID, HUTCHESON, KATHERINE ARNOLD · 2017 to 2019
$810k
Fellow and Resident Radiation Oncology iNtensive Training in Imaging and Informatics to Empower Research Careers (FRONTI2ER)R25EB025787 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI DAS, PRAJNAN, FULLER, CLIFTON DAVID · 2018 to 2022
$535k
Using Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) to Establish Objective Clinical Outcome Measures for Mandibular OsteoradionecrosisR56DE025248 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI LAI, STEPHEN Y · 2015 to 2015
$470k
Translational Research Career Development: Overcoming Resistance to RadiotherapyIK2BX004360 · VA · CINCINNATI VA MEDICAL CENTER RESEARCH · PI Vinita Takiar · 2019 to 2026
–
Andrew Sabin Family FoundationNational Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research Award 1R01DE025248-01National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research Award R56DE025248-01National Science Foundation 1R01CA214825-01National Science Foundation 1R01CA218148-01National Science Foundation BD2KNational Science Foundation P30CA016672NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS P50 CA097007NCI NIH HHS R01 CA214825NCI NIH HHS R01 CA218148NCI NIH HHS R01 CA258827NIBIB NIH HHS R25 EB025787NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE025248NIDCR NIH HHS R56 DE025248NIH Big Data to KnowledgeNIH HHS 1R25EB025787-01NIH/NSF Initiative 1557679Sabin Family Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the optimal dose-volume constraint for laryngeal sparing using three commonly employed intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) approaches in patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated to the bilateral neck. MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty patients with stage II-IVA oropharynx cancers received definitive radiotherapy with split-field IMRT (SF-IMRT) to the bilateral neck between 2008 and 2013. Each case was re-planned using whole-field IMRT (WF-IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and plan quality metrics and dose to laryngeal structures was evaluated. Two larynx volumes were defined and compared on the current study: the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) larynx as defined per the RTOG 1016 protocol and the MDACC larynx defined as the components of the larynx bounded by the superior and inferior extent of the thyroid cartilage.

resultsTarget coverage, conformity, and heterogeneity indices were similar in all techniques. The RTOG larynx mean dose was lower with WF-IMRT than SF-IMRT (22.1 vs 25.8 Gy; P < 0.01). The MDACC larynx mean dose was 17.5 Gy ± 5.4 Gy with no differences between the 3 techniques. WF-IMRT and VMAT plans were associated with lower mean doses to the supraglottic larynx (42.1 vs 41.2 vs 54.8 Gy; P < 0.01) and esophagus (18.1 vs 18.2 vs 36 Gy; P < 0.01).

conclusionsModern whole field techniques can provide effective laryngeal sparing in patients receiving radiotherapy to the bilateral neck for advanced oropharyngeal cancers. SUMMARY: We evaluated laryngeal dose in patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer treated to the bilateral neck using split-field IMRT (SF-IMRT), whole-field IMRT (WF-IMRT) and volumetric arc therapy (VMAT). All three techniques provided good sparing of laryngeal structures and were able to achieve a mean larynx dose < 33 Gy. There were no significant differences in dose to target structures or non-laryngeal organs at risk among techniques.

Indexed as

LarynxOropharyngeal NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssisteddosimetryIMRTLarynxoropharynxsplit-fieldVMAT

Identifiers

PMID33277960
PMCPMC7856483
OpenAlexW3106754137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.