ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Low-Dose Radiotherapy
Article 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 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes and Safety of Ultra-Low-Dose Radiotherapy for Ocular Adnexal Lymphoma: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Current Status of the Spectrum and Therapeutics ofCancers · 2022Review
- Ultra-low dose radiotherapy in the management of low-grade orbital lymphomas.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRadiation therapy (RT) with doses ranging from 24 Gray (Gy) to 40 Gy is a proven treatment modality for indolent orbital adnexal lymphoma (IOAL), but recently the use of low dose RT (LDRT, defined as 2 Gy x 2 fractions) has become a notable alternative. However, limited data exists comparing outcomes following LDRT to moderate-dose RT (MDRT, RT dose 4 - 36 Gy). We present a single institution retrospective analysis comparing outcomes of patients with IOALs following LDRT or MDRT.
methodsA total of 36 patients treated with 38 consecutive courses of RT were identified; LDRT was delivered for 14 courses and MDRT for 24 courses. Overall response rates (ORR) were recorded according to Deauville or RECIST criteria with a response characterized as a complete response (CR) or partial response. Local control (LC), orbital control (OC), and overall survival (OS) rates were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. RT toxicity was graded per CTCAEv5 and compared with the Fisher's exact test.
resultsMedian follow-up time was 29 months (m) (range, 4-129m), and median MDRT dose used was 24 Gy (range 21-36 Gy). Overall response rates (ORR) were 100% (CR 50%) and 87.5% (CR 58.3%) following LDRT and MDRT, respectively. OS at 2 years was 100% and 95% for the LDRT and MDRT groups, respectively (p=0.36). LC rates at 2 years was 100% for both LDRT and MDRT groups and at 4 years was 100% and 89% for the LDRT and MDRT groups, respectively (p=0.56). The 4-year OC rate (including both ipsilateral and contralateral relapses) was 80% and 85% for the LDRT and MDRT groups, respectively (p=0.79). No patient required treatment with RT to a previously irradiated orbit. Acute toxicities were reported following 6 LDRT courses compared to 20 MDRT courses (p=.014). No Grade 3 or higher acute toxicities occurred in either group. Late toxicities were reported following 2 LDRT courses compared to 10 MDRT courses (p=0.147).
conclusionsLDRT produced similar ORR, LC, OC, and OS rates compared to MDRT with fewer acute and minimal late toxicities reported. Future multi-center studies with larger patient numbers are warranted to show significant associations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.