ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2020
Proton beam radiotherapy for esophagus cancer: state of the art.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical advances and challenges in dose constraints for organs at risk in proton therapy: A systematic review of the last decade's literature.Precision radiation oncology · 2025Review
- Prognostic role of effective radiation dose to immune cells in esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation.PloS one · 2025Article
- Consequences of ionizing radiation exposure to the cardiovascular system.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2024Review
- Autodelineation methods in a simulated fully automated proton therapy workflow for esophageal cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Low-Dose Radiation Yields Lower Rates of Pathologic Response in Esophageal Cancer Patients.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Assessment of Field-in-Field, 3-Field, and 4-Field Treatment Planning Methods for Radiotherapy of Gastro-Esophageal Junction Cancer.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2022Article
- Advances in the curative management of oesophageal cancer.British journal of cancer · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The majority of esophageal cancer patients are diagnosed with locoregionally confined disease, which is often amenable to curative intent therapy. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) improves overall survival (OS) in stage II and III esophagus cancer in the neoadjuvant and definitive settings. Due to the close proximity of organs at risk (OARs), including lungs, heart, stomach, bowel, kidneys, and spinal cord, esophageal CRT can result in profound acute and late toxicities. Acute toxicities can include esophagitis, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and cytopenias. Late complications may also occur months or years after completion of thoracic radiotherapy, including significant cardiac, pulmonary, liver, kidney, or bowel toxicities, which can be life-threatening or fatal. Photon-based radiotherapy exposes OARs to significant doses of radiation, whereas proton beam therapy (PBT) has unique physical properties, as it lacks an exit dose. This allows PBT to deliver, a more conformal dose to the target and minimize the volume of OARs exposed to radiation. This dosimetric advantage may portend an increased therapeutic ratio of CRT for esophagus cancer. The objective of this review is to discuss the evolution of photon and proton-based radiotherapy techniques, rationale, dosimetric and clinical studies comparing outcomes of photon- and proton-based techniques, ongoing prospective trials, and future directions of PBT as a means of reducing toxicity and improving oncologic outcomes for patients with esophagus cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.