Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36371225›Full record

SynthesisRadiation oncology (London, England)2022

Functional brain imaging interventions for radiation therapy planning in patients with glioblastoma: a systematic review.

John T Ryan, Masao Nakayama, Ian Gleeson, Liam Mannion, Moshi Geso, Jennifer Kelly, Sweet Ping Ng, Nicholas Hardcastle

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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 22% 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A Synopsis of Biomarkers in Glioblastoma: Past and Present.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

John T RyanDepartment of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia. john.ryan1@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0257-7968
Masao NakayamaDivision of Radiation Oncology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunokicho, Chuou-ku, Kobe, Japan.
Ian GleesonCancer Research UK RadNet Cambridge, Medical Physics, NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Liam MannionDivision of Midwifery and Radiography, School of Health Sciences, University of London, Northampton Square, London, UK.
Moshi GesoMedical Radiations Department, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, STEM College, RMIT University Bundoora, Melbourne, Australia.
Jennifer KellyMedical Radiations Department, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, STEM College, RMIT University Bundoora, Melbourne, Australia.
Sweet Ping NgDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre, 145 Studley Rd, Heidelberg, Melbourne, Australia.
Nicholas HardcastleDepartment of Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, Australia.
RMIT University · AUCancer Research UK · GBKobe University · JPMonash Medical Centre · AUOlivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness & Research Centre · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUUniversity of London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 28870
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleThis systematic review aims to synthesise the outcomes of different strategies of incorporating functional biological markers in the radiation therapy plans of patients with glioblastoma to support clinicians and further research.

methodsThe systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021221021). A structured search for publications was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study characteristics, intervention methodology and outcomes were extracted using Covidence. Data analysis focused on radiation therapy target volumes, toxicity, dose distributions, recurrence and survival mapped to functional image-guided radiotherapy interventions.

resultsThere were 5733 citations screened, with 53 citations (n = 32 studies) meeting review criteria. Studies compared standard radiation therapy planning volumes with functional image-derived volumes (n = 20 studies), treated radiation therapy volumes with recurrences (n = 15 studies), the impact on current standard target delineations (n = 9 studies), treated functional volumes and survival (n = 8 studies), functionally guided dose escalation (n = 8 studies), radiomics (n = 4 studies) and optimal organ at risk sparing (n = 3 studies). The approaches to target outlining and dose escalation were heterogeneous. The analysis indicated an improvement in median overall survival of over two months compared with a historical control group. Simultaneous-integrated-boost dose escalation of 72-76 Gy in 30 fractions appeared to have an acceptable toxicity profile when delivered with inverse planning to a volume smaller than 100 cm[Formula: see text].

conclusionThere was significant heterogeneity between the approaches taken by different study groups when implementing functional image-guided radiotherapy. It is recommended that functional imaging data be incorporated into the gross tumour volume with appropriate technology-specific margins used to create the clinical target volume when designing radiation therapy plans for patients with glioblastoma.

Indexed as

GlioblastomaRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedFunctional NeuroimagingHumansRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedFunctional imagingGlioblastomaRadiotherapy planningSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36371225
PMCPMC9653002
OpenAlexW4309046112

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.