Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34409199›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Initial Clinical Experience.

Ronik S Bhangoo, Trey C Mullikin, Jonathan B Ashman, Tiffany W Cheng, Michael A Golafshar, Todd A DeWees, Jedediah E Johnson, Satomi Shiraishi, Wei Liu, Yanle Hu and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Do We Have a Winner? Advocating for SBRT in HCC Management.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ronik S BhangooDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Trey C MullikinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Jonathan B AshmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Tiffany W ChengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Michael A GolafsharDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Todd A DeWeesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Jedediah E JohnsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Satomi ShiraishiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Wei LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Yanle HuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Kenneth W MerrellDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Michael G HaddockDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Sunil KrishnanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
William G RuleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Terence T SioDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Christopher L HallemeierDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Mayo Clinic in Florida · USMayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USWinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOur purpose was to assess the safety and efficacy of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review was conducted on all patients who were treated with IMPT for HCC with curative intent from June 2015 to December 2018. All patients had fiducials placed before treatment. Inverse treatment planning used robust optimization with 2 to 3 beams. The majority of patients were treated in 15 fractions (n = 30, 81%, 52.5-67.5 Gy, relative biological effectiveness), whereas the remainder were treated in 5 fractions (n = 7, 19%, 37.5-50 Gy, relative biological effectiveness). Daily image guidance consisted of orthogonal kilovoltage x-rays and use of a 6° of freedom robotic couch. Outcomes (local control, progression free survival, and overall survival) were determined using Kaplan-Meier methods.

resultsThirty-seven patients were included. The median follow-up for living patients was 21 months (Q1-Q3, 17-30 months). Pretreatment Child-Pugh score was A5-6 in 70% of patients and B7-9 in 30% of patients. Nineteen patients had prior liver directed therapy for HCC before IMPT. Eight patients (22%) required a replan during treatment, most commonly due to inadequate clinical target volume coverage. One patient (3%) experienced a grade 3 acute toxicity (pain) with no recorded grade 4 or 5 toxicities. An increase in Child-Pugh score by ≥ 2 within 3 months of treatment was observed in 6 patients (16%). At 1 year, local control was 94%, intrahepatic control was 54%, progression free survival was 35%, and overall survival was 78%.

conclusionsIMPT is safe and feasible for treatment of HCC.

Identifiers

PMID34409199
PMCPMC8361033
OpenAlexW3133579431

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.