Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36072755›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Trends in Radiation Oncology Treatment Fractionation at a Single Academic Center, 2010 to 2020.

Benjamin A Y Cher, Michael Dykstra, Chang Wang, Matthew Schipper, James A Hayman, Charles S Mayo, Reshma Jagsi

Abstract 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Benjamin A Y CherDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Michael DykstraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Chang WangDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Matthew SchipperDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
James A HaymanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Charles S MayoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Reshma JagsiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Recent clinical trials suggest hypofractionated treatment regimens are appropriate for treatment of many cancers. It is important to understand and document hypofractionation adoption because of its implications for treatment center patient volumes. There is no recent U.S. study of trends in hypofractionation adoption that includes comparisons of multiple disease sites and data since the onset of COVID-19. In this context, this study describes trends in treatment fractionation at a single academic center from 2010 to 2020. Methods and Materials: From an institutional database, records were extracted for treatment of 4 disease site categories: all cancers, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and bone metastases. For each disease site, the mean number of fractions per treatment course was reported for each year of the study period. To explore whether the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased hypofractionation adoption, piecewise linear regression models were used to estimate a changepoint in the time trend of mean monthly number of fractions per treatment course and to evaluate whether this changepoint coincided with pandemic onset. Results: The data set included 22,865 courses of radiation treatment and 375,446 treatment fractions. The mean number of fractions per treatment course for all cancers declined from 17.5 in 2010 to 13.6 in 2020. There was increased adoption of hypofractionation at this institution for all cancers and specifically for both breast and prostate cancer. For bone metastases, hypofractionation had largely been adopted before the study period. For most disease sites, adoption of hypofractionated treatment courses occurred before pandemic onset. Bone metastases was the only disease site where a pandemic-driven increase in hypofractionation adoption could not be ruled out. Conclusions: This study reveals increasing use of hypofractionated regimens for a variety of cancers throughout the study period, which largely occurred before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic at this institution.

Identifiers

PMID36072755
PMCPMC9441303

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.