Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34646969›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Dosimetry and Acute Toxicity Profile of Patients With Esophageal Cancer Treated With Proton Beam Radiation Therapy: Outcomes From the Proton Collaborative Group REG001-09 Trial.

Jacob S Parzen, Michael D Chuong, John Chang, Lane Rosen, James Urbanic, William Hartsell, Henry Tsai, Christopher Sinesi, Jing Zeng, Mark Mishra and 3 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

13 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Jacob S ParzenBeaumont Proton Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Michael D ChuongMiami Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami, Florida.
John ChangNorthwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Warrenville, Illinois.
Lane RosenWillis-Knighton Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shreveport, Louisiana.
James UrbanicCalifornia Protons Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, San Diego, California.
William HartsellNorthwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Warrenville, Illinois.
Henry TsaiPrinceton ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Kendall Park, New Jersey.
Christopher SinesiHampton University Proton Therapy Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Hampton, Virginia.
Jing ZengSeattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Seattle, Washington.
Mark MishraMaryland Proton Treatment Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Baltimore, Maryland.
Carlos VargasMayo Clinic Proton Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Phoenix, Arizona.
Craig StevensBeaumont Proton Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Peyman KabolizadehBeaumont Proton Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Oakland University · USNorthwestern Medicine · USHampton University · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USMiami Heart Research Institute · USProCure (United States) · USSeattle Cancer Care Alliance · USWillis-Knighton Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeConcurrent chemoradiation plays an integral role in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Proton beam radiation therapy has the potential to spare adjacent critical organs, improving toxicity profiles and potentially improving clinical outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We evaluated the REG001-09 registry for patients undergoing proton radiation therapy for esophageal cancer. Demographic, clinicopathologic, toxicity, and dosimetry information were compiled.

resultsWe identified 155 patients treated at 10 institutions between 2010 and 2019. One hundred twenty (77%) had adenocarcinoma and 34 (22%) had squamous cell carcinoma. One hundred thirty-seven (88%) received concurrent chemotherapy. The median delivered dose was 50.51 Gy-equivalent (GyE; range, 41.4-70.1). Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 22 (14%) of patients and were most commonly dysphagia (6%), esophagitis (4%), anorexia (4%), and nausea (2%). There were no episodes of grade ≥4 lymphopenia and no grade 5 toxicities. The average mean heart, lung, and liver doses and average maximum spinal cord dose were 10.0 GyE, 4.8 GyE, 3.8 GyE, and 34.2 GyE, respectively. For gastroesophageal junction tumors, 8% of patients developed acute grade ≥3 toxicity and the mean heart, liver, right kidney, and left kidney doses were 10.5 GyE, 3.9 GyE, 0.4 GyE, and 4.9 GyE, respectively. Gastroesophageal junction location was protective against development of grade ≥3 toxicity on univariate (

conclusionsProton beam radiation therapy affords excellent dosimetric parameters and low toxicity in patients with esophageal cancer treated with curative intent. Prospective trials are underway investigating the comparative benefit of proton-based therapy.

Identifiers

PMID34646969
PMCPMC8498730
OpenAlexW3183953297

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.