Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34722808›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2021

Radiation-Induced Lymphopenia Risks of Photon Versus Proton Therapy for Esophageal Cancer Patients.

Saba Ebrahimi, Gino Lim, Amy Liu, Steven H Lin, Susannah G Ellsworth, Clemens Grassberger, Radhe Mohan, Wenhua Cao

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of particle therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Proton radiation boosts the efficacy of mesothelin-targeting chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy in pancreatic cancer.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Saba EbrahimiDepartment of Industrial Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Gino LimDepartment of Industrial Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Amy LiuDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Steven H LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Susannah G EllsworthDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Clemens GrassbergerDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Radhe MohanDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Wenhua CaoDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Houston · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USMassachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

Mitigating High Grade Radiation-Induced Lymphopenia through Pretreatment Autologous Lymphocyte InfusionR21CA240881 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI AL-ATRASH, GHEATH, LIN, STEVEN HSESHENG · 2019 to 2021
$388k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA240881
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess possible differences in radiation-induced lymphocyte depletion for esophageal cancer patients being treated with the following 3 treatment modalities: intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT), and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used 2 prediction models to estimate lymphocyte depletion based on dose distributions. Model I used a piecewise linear relationship between lymphocyte survival and voxel-by-voxel dose. Model II assumes that lymphocytes deplete exponentially as a function of total delivered dose. The models can be fitted using the weekly absolute lymphocyte counts measurements collected throughout treatment. We randomly selected 45 esophageal cancer patients treated with IMRT, PSPT, or IMPT at our institution (15 per modality) to demonstrate the fitness of the 2 models. A different group of 10 esophageal cancer patients who had received PSPT were included in this study of in silico simulations of multiple modalities. One IMRT and one IMPT plan were created, using our standards of practice for each modality, as competing plans to the existing PSPT plan for each patient. We fitted the models by PSPT plans used in treatment and predicted absolute lymphocyte counts for IMRT and IMPT plans.

resultsModel validation on each modality group of patients showed good agreement between measured and predicted absolute lymphocyte counts nadirs with mean squared errors from 0.003 to 0.023 among the modalities and models. In the simulation study of IMRT and IMPT on the 10 PSPT patients, the average predicted absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) nadirs were 0.27, 0.35, and 0.37 K/μL after IMRT, PSPT, and IMPT treatments using Model I, respectively, and 0.14, 0.22, and 0.33 K/μL using Model II.

conclusionsProton plans carried a lower predicted risk of lymphopenia after the treatment course than did photon plans. Moreover, IMPT plans outperformed PSPT in terms of predicted lymphocyte preservation.

Indexed as

IMPTIMRTlymphopeniaPSPT

Identifiers

PMID34722808
PMCPMC8489492
OpenAlexW3147634793

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.