Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34046339›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2021

Magnetic Resonance Guided Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Advantages, Challenges, Current Approaches, and Future Directions.

William A Hall, Christina Small, Eric Paulson, Eugene J Koay, Christopher Crane, Martijn Intven, Lois A Daamen, Gert J Meijer, Hanne D Heerkens, Michael Bassetti and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

19 authors at 12 institutions in 5 countries.

William A HallDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States.
Christina SmallDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States.
Eric PaulsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States.
Eugene J KoayDivision of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Christopher CraneDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
Martijn IntvenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Lois A DaamenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Gert J MeijerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Hanne D HeerkensDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Michael BassettiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Stephen A RosenbergDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States.
Katharine AitkenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Sten MyrehaugOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Laura A DawsonPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Percy LeeDivision of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Cihan GaniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Michael David ChuongMiami Cancer Institute, Baptist Hospital of Miami, Miami, FL, United States.
Parag J ParikhHenry Ford Medical Center, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, United States.
Beth A EricksonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States.
Medical College of Wisconsin · USUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USBaptist Hospital of Miami · USHealth Sciences Centre · CAHenry Ford Health System · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USMoffitt Cancer Center · USPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre · CARoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Tübingen · DEUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR001438 · NCATS · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI WIDLANSKY, MICHAEL E · 2015 to 2024
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) has some of the worst treatment outcomes for any solid tumor. PAC creates substantial difficulty for effective treatment with traditional RT delivery strategies primarily secondary to its location and limited visualization using CT. Several of these challenges are uniquely addressed with MR-guided RT. We sought to summarize and place into context the currently available literature on MR-guided RT specifically for PAC.

methodsA literature search was conducted to identify manuscript publications since September 2014 that specifically used MR-guided RT for the treatment of PAC. Clinical outcomes of these series are summarized, discussed, and placed into the context of the existing pancreatic literature. Multiple international experts were involved to optimally contextualize these publications.

resultsOver 300 manuscripts were reviewed. A total of 6 clinical outcomes publications were identified that have treated patients with PAC using MR guidance. Successes, challenges, and future directions for this technology are evident in these publications. MR-guided RT holds theoretical promise for the treatment of patients with PAC. As with any new technology, immediate or dramatic clinical improvements associated with its use will take time and experience. There remain no prospective trials, currently publications are limited to small retrospective experiences. The current level of evidence for MR guidance in PAC is low and requires significant expansion. Future directions and ongoing studies that are currently open and accruing are identified and reviewed.

conclusionsThe potential promise of MR-guided RT for PAC is highlighted, the challenges associated with this novel therapeutic intervention are also reviewed. Outcomes are very early, and will require continued and long term follow up. MR-guided RT should not be viewed in the same fashion as a novel chemotherapeutic agent for which dosing, administration, and toxicity has been established in earlier phase studies. Instead, it should be viewed as a novel procedural intervention which must be robustly tested, refined and practiced before definitive conclusions on the potential benefits or detriments can be determined. The future of MR-guided RT for PAC is highly promising and the potential implications on PAC are substantial.

Indexed as

MR-guided radiation therapyMR-guided RTMRI guidancepancreatic cancerpancreatic cancer and radiation therapypancreatic image–guided RT

Identifiers

PMID34046339
PMCPMC8144850
OpenAlexW3160128359

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.