Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34202135›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Re-Irradiation for Head and Neck Cancer: Cumulative Dose to Organs at Risk and Late Side Effects.

Anna Embring, Eva Onjukka, Claes Mercke, Ingmar Lax, Anders Berglund, Sara Bornedal, Berit Wennberg, Emmy Dalqvist, Signe Friesland

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. A dedicated institutional clinical workflow and peer-review meeting for reirradiation.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  4. Accuracy of reirradiation dose constraints for the mandible and carotids.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Multi-institutional virtual peer review for reirradiation: dedicated workflow and one-year results.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna EmbringDepartment of Oncology, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5147-3276
Eva OnjukkaDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9113-4044
Claes MerckeDepartment of Oncology, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.
Ingmar LaxDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.
Anders BerglundEpistat Epidemiology and Statistics Consulting, 756 55 Uppsala, Sweden.
Sara BornedalDepartment of Medical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.
Berit WennbergDepartment of Medical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.
Emmy DalqvistDepartment of Medical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.
Signe FrieslandDepartment of Oncology, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska University Hospital · SE

Funding

Stiftelsen Konung Gustaf V:s Jubileumsfond 164082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Re-irradiation in head and neck cancer is challenging, and cumulative dose constraints and dose/volume data are scarce. In this study, we present dose/volume data for patients re-irradiated for head and neck cancer and explore the correlations of cumulative dose to organs at risk and severe side effects. We analyzed 54 patients re-irradiated for head and neck cancer between 2011 and 2017. Organs at risk were delineated and dose/volume data were collected from cumulative treatment plans of all included patients. Receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) analysis assessed the association between dose/volume parameters and the risk of toxicity. The ROC-curve for a logistic model of carotid blowout vs. maximum doses to the carotid arteries showed AUC = 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00) and a cut-off value of 119 Gy (sensitivity 1.00/specificity 0.89). The near-maximum dose to bones showed an association with the risk of osteoradionecrosis: AUC = 0.74 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.95) and a cut-off value of 119 Gy (sensitivity 1.00/specificity 0.52). Our analysis showed an association between cumulative dose to organs at risk and the risk of developing osteoradionecrosis and carotid blowout, and our results support the existing dose constraint for the carotid arteries of 120 Gy. The confirmation of these dose-response relationships will contribute to further improvements of re-irradiation strategies.

Indexed as

carotid blowoutcomposite DVHcumulative dosehead and neck cancerlate side effectsorgans at riskosteoradionecrosisre-irradiation

Identifiers

PMID34202135
PMCPMC8269009
OpenAlexW3174293408

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.