Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36367724›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Toxicity Profiles and Survival Outcomes Among Patients With Nonmetastatic Oropharyngeal Carcinoma Treated With Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy vs Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy.

Irini Youssef, Jennifer Yoon, Nader Mohamed, Kaveh Zakeri, Robert H Press, Linda Chen, Daphna Y Gelblum, Sean M McBride, Chiaojung Jillian Tsai, Nadeem Riaz and 14 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evidence-based indications for proton therapy in adults determined using the GRADE approach.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. A systematic review of salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia induced by non-surgical cancer therapies: prevention strategies.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Proton therapy in Spain: SEOR-SPROMP multidisciplinary recommendations developed through a RAND/UCLA consensus process.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Irini YoussefDepartment of Radiation Oncology, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, New York.
Jennifer YoonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick.
Nader MohamedDepartment of Radiation Oncology, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, New York.
Kaveh ZakeriDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Robert H PressNew York Proton Center, New York.
Linda ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Daphna Y GelblumDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Sean M McBrideDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Chiaojung Jillian TsaiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Nadeem RiazDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Yao YuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Marc A CohenDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Lara Ann DunnDepartment of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Alan L HoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Richard J WongDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Loren S MichelDepartment of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Jay O BoyleDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Bhuvanesh SinghDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Anuja KriplaniDepartment of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Ian GanlyDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Eric J ShermanDepartment of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
David G PfisterDepartment of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
James FettenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Nancy Y LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USNew York Proton Center · USRutgers Cancer Institute of New JerseySUNY Downstate Health Sciences University · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC) treated with radiotherapy often experience substantial toxic effects, even with modern techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) has a potential advantage over IMRT due to reduced dose to the surrounding organs at risk; however, data are scarce given the limited availability and use of IMPT. Objective: To compare toxic effects and oncologic outcomes among patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic OPC treated with IMPT vs IMRT with or without chemotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic OPC who received curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT at a single-institution tertiary academic cancer center from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, with follow-up through December 31, 2021. Exposures: IMPT or IMRT with or without chemotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the incidence of acute and chronic (present after ≥6 months) treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and oncologic outcomes, including locoregional recurrence (LRR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Fisher exact tests and χ2 tests were used to evaluate associations between toxic effects and treatment modality (IMPT vs IMRT), and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare LRR, PFS, and OS between the 2 groups. Results: The study included 292 patients with OPC (272 [93%] with human papillomavirus [HPV]-p16-positive tumors); 254 (87%) were men, 38 (13%) were women, and the median age was 64 years (IQR, 58-71 years). Fifty-eight patients (20%) were treated with IMPT, and 234 (80%) were treated with IMRT. Median follow-up was 26 months (IQR, 17-36 months). Most patients (283 [97%]) received a dose to the primary tumor of 70 Gy. Fifty-seven of the patients treated with IMPT (98%) and 215 of those treated with IMRT (92%) had HPV-p16-positive disease. There were no significant differences in 3-year OS (97% IMPT vs 91% IMRT; P = .18), PFS (82% IMPT vs 85% IMRT; P = .62), or LRR (5% IMPT vs 4% IMRT; P = .59). The incidence of acute toxic effects was significantly higher for IMRT compared with IMPT for oral pain of grade 2 or greater (42 [72%] IMPT vs 217 [93%] IMRT; P < .001), xerostomia of grade 2 or greater (12 [21%] IMPT vs 68 [29%] IMRT; P < .001), dysgeusia of grade 2 or greater (16 [28%] IMPT vs 134 [57%] IMRT; P < .001), grade 3 dysphagia (4 [7%] IMPT vs 29 [12%] IMRT; P < .001), mucositis of grade 3 or greater (10 [53%] IMPT vs 13 [70%] IMRT; P = .003), nausea of grade 2 or greater (0 [0%] IMPT vs 18 [8%] IMRT; P = .04), and weight loss of grade 2 or greater (22 [37%] IMPT vs 138 [59%] IMRT; P < .001). There were no significant differences in chronic toxic effects of grade 3 or greater, although there was a significant difference for chronic xerostomia of grade 2 or greater (6 IMPT [11%] vs 22 IMRT [10%]; P < .001). Four patients receiving IMRT (2%) vs 0 receiving IMPT had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for longer than 6 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT for nonmetastatic OPC was associated with a significantly reduced acute toxicity burden compared with IMRT, with few chronic toxic effects and favorable oncologic outcomes, including locoregional recurrence of only 5% at 2 years. Prospective randomized clinical trials comparing these 2 technologies and of patient-reported outcomes are warranted.

Indexed as

CarcinomaOropharyngeal NeoplasmsPapillomavirus InfectionsProton TherapyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedXerostomiaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProspective StudiesRadiotherapy DosageRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36367724
PMCPMC9652753
OpenAlexW4308787127

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.