Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34934858›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Stereotactic Versus Conventional Radiation Therapy for Patients With Pancreatic Cancer in the Modern Era.

Joseph Abi Jaoude, Connor P Thunshelle, Ramez Kouzy, Nicholas D Nguyen, Daniel Lin, Laura Prakash, Isabela M Bumanlag, Sonal S Noticewala, Joshua S Niedzielski, Sam Beddar and 9 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 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. The botanical drug PBI-05204, a supercritical COFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Advances in radiation oncology
    Article
  19. 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

19 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joseph Abi JaoudeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Connor P ThunshelleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Ramez KouzyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Nicholas D NguyenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Daniel LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Laura PrakashDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Isabela M BumanlagDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Sonal S NoticewalaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Joshua S NiedzielskiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Sam BeddarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Ethan B LudmirDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Emma B HollidayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Prajnan DasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Bruce D MinskyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Joseph M HermanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Lake Success, Hempstead, New York.
Matthew KatzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Albert C KoongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Eugene J KoayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Cullen M TaniguchiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USHofstra University · US

Funding

Translating Intestinal Radioprotection by EGLN Inhibition to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Unresectable Pancreatic CancerR01CA227517 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI KOONG, ALBERT · 2019 to 2023
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA227517
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients with pancreatic cancer often receive radiation therapy before undergoing surgical resection. We compared the clinical outcomes differences between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and 3-dimensional (3D)/intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively collected data from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Patients with borderline resectable/potentially resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer receiving neoadjuvant SBRT (median, 36.0 Gy/5fx), 3D conformal radiation (median, 50.4 Gy/28 fx) or IMRT (median, 50.4 Gy/28 fx) were included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were analyzed using Cox regression.

resultsIn total, 104 patients were included in our study. Fifty-seven patients (54.8%) were treated with SBRT, and 47 patients (45.2%) were treated with 3D/IMRT. Patients in the SBRT group were slightly older (median age: 70.3 vs 62.7 in the 3D/IMRT group). Both groups had similar proportions of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SBRT: 30, 52.6%; 3D/IMRT: 24, 51.1%). All patients were treated with chemotherapy. Patients in the SBRT group underwent more surgical resection compared with the 3D/IMRT group (38.6% vs 23.4%, respectively). At a median follow-up of 22 months, a total of 60 patients (57.7%) died: 25 (25/57, 43.9%) in the SBRT group, and 35 (35/47, 74.5%) in the 3D/IMRT group. Median OS was slightly higher in the SBRT group (29.6 months vs 24.1 months in the 3D/IMRT group). On multivariable Cox regression, the choice of radiation therapy technique was not associated with differences in OS (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] = 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2%-1.3%,

conclusionsSBRT was associated with similar clinical outcomes compared with conventional radiation techniques, despite being delivered over a shorter period of time which would spare patients prolonged treatment burden. Future prospective data are still needed to better assess the role of SBRT in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Identifiers

PMID34934858
PMCPMC8655391
OpenAlexW3188058642

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.