Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33532631›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2021

Combining radiotherapy and focused ultrasound for pain palliation of cancer induced bone pain; a stage I/IIa study according to the IDEAL framework.

Marcia M T J Bartels, Inez M Verpalen, Cyril J Ferrer, Derk J Slotman, Erik C J Phernambucq, Joost J C Verhoeff, Wietse S C Eppinga, Manon N G J A Braat, Rolf D van den Hoed, Miranda van 't Veer-Ten Kate and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

18 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcia M T J BartelsUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Imaging and Oncology, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Inez M VerpalenIsala Hospital, Department of Radiology, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Cyril J FerrerUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Image Sciences Institute, Division of Imaging and Oncology, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Derk J SlotmanIsala Hospital, Department of Radiology, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Erik C J PhernambucqIsala Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Joost J C VerhoeffUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Imaging and Oncology, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wietse S C EppingaUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Imaging and Oncology, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Manon N G J A BraatUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiology, Division of Imaging and Oncology, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rolf D van den HoedIsala Hospital, Department of Radiology, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Miranda van 't Veer-Ten KateIsala Hospital, Department of Radiology, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Erwin de BoerIsala Hospital, Department of Radiology, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Harry R NaberIsala Hospital, Department of Radiology, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Ingrid M NijholtIsala Hospital, Department of Radiology, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Lambertus W BartelsUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Image Sciences Institute, Division of Imaging and Oncology, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Clemens BosUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Image Sciences Institute, Division of Imaging and Oncology, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Chrit T W MoonenUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Image Sciences Institute, Division of Imaging and Oncology, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Martijn F BoomsmaIsala Hospital, Department of Radiology, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Helena M VerkooijenUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Imaging and Oncology, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Isala · NLUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEHeidelberg University · DEUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer induced bone pain (CIBP) strongly interferes with patient's quality of life. Currently, the standard of care includes external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), resulting in pain relief in approximately 60% of patients. Magnetic Resonance guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU) is a promising treatment modality for CIBP.

methodsA single arm, R-IDEAL stage I/IIa study was conducted. Patients presenting at the department of radiation oncology with symptomatic bone metastases in the appendicular skeleton, as well as in the sacrum and sternum were eligible for inclusion. All participants underwent EBRT, followed by MR-HIFU within 4 days. Safety and feasibility were assessed, and pain scores were monitored for 4 weeks after completing the combined treatment.

resultsSix patients were enrolled. Median age was 67 years, median lesion diameter was 56,5 mm. In all patients it was logistically possible to plan and perform the MR-HIFU treatment within 4 days after EBRT. All patients tolerated the combined procedure well. Pain response was reported by 5 out of 6 patients at 7 days after completion of the combined treatment, and stabilized on 60% at 4 weeks follow up. No treatment related serious adverse events occurred.

conclusionThis is the first study to combine EBRT with MR-HIFU. Our results show that combined EBRT and MR-HIFU in first-line treatment of CIBP is safe and feasible, and is well tolerated by patients. Superiority over standard EBRT, in terms of (time to) pain relief and quality of life need to be evaluated in comparative (randomized) study.

Indexed as

Bone and bonesCancer painHigh-Intensity Focused Ultrasound AblationMagnetic resonance imaging interventionalNeoplasm metastasisPain managementPalliative carePalliative therapyRadiation oncologyRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID33532631
PMCPMC7822778
OpenAlexW3120169558

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.