Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36273186›Full record

ArticleTrials2022

High-dose Intensity-modulated proton therapy versus Standard-dose Intensity-modulated RadIation therapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (HI-SIRI): study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Chawalit Lertbutsayanukul, Sarin Kitpanit, Danita Kannarunimit, Chakkapong Chakkabat, Sornjarod Oonsiri, Kullathorn Thephamongkhol, Putipun Puataweepong, Kanyarat Katanyoo, Jirasak Sukhaboon, Chokaew Tovanabut and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

14 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Chawalit LertbutsayanukulDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, 1873 Rama IV Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Sarin KitpanitDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, 1873 Rama IV Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Danita KannarunimitDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, 1873 Rama IV Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Chakkapong ChakkabatDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, 1873 Rama IV Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Sornjarod OonsiriDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, 1873 Rama IV Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Kullathorn ThephamongkholDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Putipun PuataweepongDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kanyarat KatanyooDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Jirasak SukhaboonDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Lopburi Cancer Hospital, Lopburi, Thailand.
Chokaew TovanabutDivision of Radiation Oncology, Chonburi Cancer Hospital, Chonburi, Thailand.
Sirikanya ChongsathienthamDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pornravee TreeratsapanichDivision of Radiation Oncology, Chulaphorn Institute, Bangkok, Thailand.
Jirarat SoonthornrakDivision of Radiation Oncology, Chanthaburi Cancer Hospital, Chantaburi, Thailand.
Anussara PrayongratDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, 1873 Rama IV Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand. Anussara.P@chula.ac.th.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0977-8316
Chulalongkorn University · THCancer Hospital Lopburi · THChonburi Cancer Hospital · THChulabhorn Research Institute · THMahidol University · THNational Cancer Institute of Thailand · THNavamindradhiraj University · THPrapokklao Hospital · THSiriraj Hospital · TH

Funding

Chulalongkorn University CU_FRB65_hea (30)_037_30_18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChemoradiotherapy is the standard of care for esophageal cancer as a neoadjuvant treatment before surgery, or as a definitive treatment for unresectable disease. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has been considered the standard radiation technique. However, patients suffer from treatment-related toxicities, and most die from disease progression or recurrence. With emerging technological advancement, proton therapy has theoretical advantages over IMRT because it offers apparent dosimetric benefits to allow dose escalation to the target while better sparing surrounding tissues such as the lungs, heart, liver, and spinal cord. The purpose of this study protocol is to investigate the survival benefit of proton therapy using modern intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) compared to standard IMRT for esophageal cancer.

methodsThis is a two-arm open phase II/III multi-institution randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients will have histologically confirmed squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus with no evidence of tracheoesophageal/esophagobronchial fistula or distant metastasis. After stratification according to resectability status (resectable vs. borderline resectable/unresectable), a total of 232 patients will be randomized to receive IMPT or IMRT using a 1:1 allocation ratio. In resectable cases, surgical resection following concurrent chemoradiation will be attempted for the patients who are medically fit at the time of surgery. In those with initially borderline resectable/unresectable disease, definitive concurrent chemoradiation will be performed. The phase II study will assess safety (toxicity and postoperative complications) and feasibility (recruitment rate and chemoradiation dose modification) in 40 patients into each arm. The study will then continue into phase III, further recruit 76 patients into each arm, and compare progression-free survival between IMPT vs IMRT groups. The secondary endpoints will be overall survival, local and distant control, toxicities, health-related quality of life, and cost-utility. This protocol describes a detailed radiotherapy and chemotherapy. DISCUSSION: This randomized clinical trial will demonstrate the clinical benefit of IMPT in esophageal cancer treatment in terms of survival and toxicity outcomes which will further establish high-level evidence for radiation modality in squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus.

trial registrationTCTR20200310006 . Registered 10 March 2020.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaProton TherapyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedChemoradiotherapyClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicEsophageal cancerIntensity-modulated proton therapyIntensity-modulated radiotherapySquamous cell carcinomaSurvivalToxicity

Identifiers

PMID36273186
PMCPMC9587557
OpenAlexW4307135724

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.