Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33938967›Full record

ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2021

Conventional 3D conformal radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for cervical cancer: Comparison of clinical results with special consideration of the influence of patient- and treatment-related parameters.

Leif Hendrik Dröge, Franziska-Felicitas von Sivers, Markus Anton Schirmer, Hendrik Andreas Wolff

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Leif Hendrik DrögeDepartment of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany. Hendrik.droege@med.uni-goettingen.de.
Franziska-Felicitas von SiversDepartment of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Markus Anton SchirmerDepartment of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Hendrik Andreas WolffUniversity Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEUniversity of Göttingen · DEUniversity of Regensburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIntensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for cervical cancer yields favorable results in terms of oncological outcomes, acute toxicity, and late toxicity. Limited data are available on clinical results with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). This study's purpose is to compare outcome and toxicity with VMAT to conventional 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), giving special consideration to the influence of patient- and treatment-related parameters on side effects. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with cervical cancer stage I-IVA underwent radiotherapy alone or chemoradiotherapy using 3DCRT (n = 75) or VMAT (n = 30). Survival endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival, and locoregional control. The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and the Late Effects of Normal Tissues criteria were used for toxicity assessment. Toxicity and patient- and treatment-related parameters were included in a multivariable model.

resultsThere were no differences in survival rates between treatment groups. VMAT significantly reduced late small bowel toxicity (OR = 0.10, p = 0.03). Additionally, VMAT was associated with an increased risk of acute urinary toxicity (OR = 2.94, p = 0.01). A low body mass index (BMI; OR = 2.46, p = 0.03) and overall acute toxicity ≥grade 2 (OR = 4.17, p < 0.01) were associated with increased overall late toxicity.

conclusionWe demonstrated significant reduction of late small bowel toxicity with VMAT treatment, an improvement in long-term morbidity is conceivable. VMAT-treated patients experienced acute urinary toxicity more frequently. Further analysis of patient- and treatment-related parameters indicates that the close monitoring of patients with low BMI and of patients who experienced relevant acute toxicity during follow-up care could improve late toxicity profiles.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrachytherapyChemoradiotherapyCisplatinFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntestine, SmallMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisProgression-Free SurvivalRadiation InjuriesRadiotherapy, ConformalRadiotherapy, High-EnergyCisplatinBody mass indexGynecologic cancerIntensity-modulated radiotherapyRadiochemotherapySmall bowel toxicityUrinary toxicity

Identifiers

PMID33938967
PMCPMC8154751
OpenAlexW3157585601

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.