Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35514527›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2022

Comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy beam configurations for treating thoracic esophageal cancer.

Sornjarod Oonsiri, Sarin Kitpanit, Danita Kannarunimit, Chakkapong Chakkabat, Chawalit Lertbutsayanukul, Anussara Prayongrat

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sornjarod OonsiriDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Sarin KitpanitDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Danita KannarunimitDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chakkapong ChakkabatDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chawalit LertbutsayanukulDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Anussara PrayongratDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital · THChulalongkorn University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Specific proton-beam configurations are needed to spare organs at risk (OARs), including lungs, heart, and spinal cord, when treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the thoracic region. This study aimed to propose new intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) beam configurations and to demonstrate the benefit of IMPT compared with intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMXT) for treating ESCC. Material and methods: IMPT plans with three different beam angle configurations were generated on CT datasets of 25 ESCC patients that were treated with IMXT. The IMPT beam designs were two commonly-used beam configurations (anteroposterior and posterior oblique) and a recently proposed beam configuration (anterosuperior with posteroinferior). The target doses were 50-54 Gy(RBE) and 60-64 Gy(RBE) to the low-risk and high-risk target volumes, respectively. Robust optimization was applied for the IMPT plans. The differences in the dose-volume parameters between the IMXT and IMPT plans were compared. Results: With target coverage comparable to standard IMXT, IMPT had significantly lower mean doses to the OARs. IMPT with an anteroposterior opposing beam generated the lowest lung dose (mean = 7.1 Gy(RBE), V Conclusion: Compared with IMXT, the IMPT plans significantly reduced the radiation dose to the surrounding organs when treating ESCC. IMPT beam configuration selection depends on the tumor location relative to the heart.

Indexed as

AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristicsBeam configurationBMI, body mass indexCT, computed tomographyCTV-HR, high-risk clinical target volumeCTV-LR, low-risk clinical target volumeESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinomaEsophageal cancerGTV, gross target volumeIMPT, intensity-modulated proton therapyIMXT, intensity-modulated x-ray therapyIQR, interquartile rangeMHD, mean heart doseMLD, mean lung doseNTCP, normal tissue complication probabilityOARs, organs-at-riskPBT, proton beam therapyProton therapyPSPT, passive scattering proton therapyPTV, planning target volumeRBE, relative biological effectivenessRT, radiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID35514527
PMCPMC9065423
OpenAlexW4225090161

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.