Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33490729›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Practical Clinical Implementation of the Special Physics Consultation Process in the Re-irradiation Environment.

Robert A Price, Lihui Jin, Joshua Meyer, Lili Chen, Teh Lin, Ahmed Eldib, Xiaoming Chen, Jie Liu, Iavor Veltchev, Lu Wang and 1 more

Abstract 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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. AAPM-RSS Medical Physics Practice Guideline 9.b: SRS-SBRT.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Review
  3. A dedicated institutional clinical workflow and peer-review meeting for reirradiation.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  4. Reirradiation practices of Radiation Therapists (RePoRT) study.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

11 authors.

Robert A PriceDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Lihui JinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Joshua MeyerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Lili ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Teh LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Ahmed EldibDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Xiaoming ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Jie LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Iavor VeltchevDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Lu WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Charlie MaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Funding

WORD PROCESSING CENTER--COREP30CA006927 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI CHARNITA M. ZEIGLER-JOHNSON · 1985 to 2026
$138.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006927
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this work is to present a practical, structured process allowing for consistent, safe radiation therapy delivery in the re-treatment environment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A process for reirradiation is described with documentation in the form of a special physics consultation. Data acquisition associated with previous treatment is described from highest to lowest quality. Methods are presented for conversion to equieffective dose, as well as our departmental assumptions for tissue repair. The generation of organ-at-risk available physical dose for use in treatment planning is discussed. Results using our methods are compared with published values after conversion to biologically effective dose. Utilization of pulsed-low-dose-rate delivery is described, and data for reirradiation using these methods over the previous 5 years are presented.

resultsBetween 2015 and 2019, the number of patients in our department requiring equieffective dose calculation has doubled. We have developed guidelines for estimation of sublethal damage repair as a function of time between treatment courses ranging from 0% for <6 months to 50% for >1 year. These guidelines were developed based on available spinal cord data because we found that 84% of organs at risk involved nerve-like tissues. The average percent repair used increased from 32% to 37% over this time period. When comparing the results obtained using our methods with published values, 99% of patients had a cumulative biologically effective dose below the limits established for acceptable myelopathy rates. Pulsed-low-dose-rate use over this period tripled with an average prescription dose of 49 Gy.

conclusionsThe methods described result in safe, effective treatment in the reirradiation setting. Further correlation with patient outcomes and side effects is warranted.

Identifiers

PMID33490729
PMCPMC7811122

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.