Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35633653›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2022

A study on predicting cases that would benefit from proton beam therapy in primary liver tumors of less than or equal to 5 cm based on the estimated incidence of hepatic toxicity.

Yusuke Uchinami, Norio Katoh, Ryusuke Suzuki, Takahiro Kanehira, Masaya Tamura, Seishin Takao, Taeko Matsuura, Naoki Miyamoto, Yoshihiro Fujita, Fuki Koizumi and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Radiation-Induced Liver Injury: An Overview.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yusuke UchinamiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, North 15 West 7, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8638, Japan.
Norio KatohDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, North 15 West 7, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8638, Japan.
Ryusuke SuzukiDepartment of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, North 14 West 5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8648, Japan.
Takahiro KanehiraDepartment of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, North 14 West 5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8648, Japan.
Masaya TamuraDepartment of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, North 14 West 5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8648, Japan.
Seishin TakaoDepartment of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, North 14 West 5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8648, Japan.
Taeko MatsuuraDepartment of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, North 14 West 5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8648, Japan.
Naoki MiyamotoDepartment of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, North 14 West 5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8648, Japan.
Yoshihiro FujitaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hokkaido University Hospital, North 14 West 5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8648, Japan.
Fuki KoizumiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hokkaido University Hospital, North 14 West 5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8648, Japan.
Hiroshi TaguchiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hokkaido University Hospital, North 14 West 5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8648, Japan.
Koichi YasudaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hokkaido University Hospital, North 14 West 5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8648, Japan.
Kentaro NishiokaDepartment of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, North 15 West 7, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8638, Japan.
Isao YokotaDepartment of Biostatistics, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, North 15 West 7, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8638, Japan.
Keiji KobashiDepartment of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, North 15 West 7, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8638, Japan.
Hidefumi AoyamaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, North 15 West 7, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8638, Japan.
Hokkaido University Hospital · JPHokkaido University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: For small primary liver tumors, favorable outcomes have been reported with both of proton beam therapy (PBT) and X-ray therapy (XRT). However, no clear criteria have been proposed in the cases for which and when of PBT or XRT has to be used. The aim of this study is to investigate cases that would benefit from PBT based on the predicted rate of hepatic toxicity. Materials and methods: Eligible patients were those who underwent PBT for primary liver tumors with a maximum diameter of ≤ 5 cm and Child-Pugh grade A (n = 40). To compare the PBT-plan, the treatment plan using volumetric modulated arc therapy was generated as the XRT-plan. The rate of predicted hepatic toxicity was estimated using five normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models with three different endpoints. The differences in NTCP values (ΔNTCP) were calculated to determine the relative advantage of PBT. Factors predicting benefits of PBT were analyzed by logistic regression analysis. Results: From the dose-volume histogram comparisons, an advantage of PBT was found in sparing of the normal liver receiving low doses. The factors predicting the benefit of PBT differed depending on the selected NTCP model. From the five models, the total tumor diameter (sum of the target tumors), location (hepatic hilum vs other), and number of tumors (1 vs 2) were significant factors. Conclusions: From the radiation-related hepatic toxicity, factors were identified to predict benefits of PBT in primary liver tumors with Child-Pugh grade A, with the maximum tumor diameter of ≤ 5 cm.

Indexed as

ALBI, albumin-bilirubinCP, Child-PughCTV, clinical target volumeDVH, dose-volume histogramGTV, gross tumor volumeGyE, Gy equivalentIMPT, intensity-modulated proton therapyIMRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapyModel-based selectionNTCP modelNTCP, normal tissue complication probabilityPBT, proton beam therapyPrimary liver tumorsPTV, planning target volumeRBE, relative biological effectivenessRILD, radiation-induced liver diseaseVMAT, Volumetric modulated arc therapyXRT, X-ray therapy

Identifiers

PMID35633653
PMCPMC9130086
OpenAlexW4280614299

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.