Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36765699›Full record

ReviewCancers2023

Combined Hyperthermia and Re-Irradiation in Non-Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

Ji-Young Kim, Sebastian Zschaeck, Jürgen Debus, Fabian Weykamp

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

4 authors.

Ji-Young KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0775-8565
Sebastian ZschaeckDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10178 Berlin, Germany.
Jürgen DebusDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Fabian WeykampDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis systematic literature review summarizes clinical studies and trials involving combined non-ablative hyperthermia and re-irradiation in locoregionally recurrent cancer except breast cancer.

methodsOne database and one registry, MEDLINE and clinicaltrials.gov, respectively, were searched for studies on combined non-ablative hyperthermia and re-irradiation in non-breast cancer patients. Extracted study characteristics included treatment modalities and re-irradiation dose concepts. Outcomes of interest were tumor response, survival measures, toxicity data and palliation. Within-study bias assessment included the identification of conflict of interest (COI). The final search was performed on 29 August 2022.

resultsTwenty-three articles were included in the final analysis, reporting on 603 patients with eight major tumor types. Twelve articles (52%) were retrospective studies. Only one randomized trial was identified. No COI statement was declared in 11 studies. Four of the remaining twelve studies exhibited significant COI. Low study and patient numbers, high heterogeneity in treatment modalities and endpoints, as well as significant within- and across-study bias impeded the synthesis of results.

conclusionOutside of locoregionally recurrent breast cancer, the role of combined moderate hyperthermia and re-irradiation can so far not be established. This review underscores the necessity for more clinical trials to generate higher levels of clinical evidence for combined re-irradiation and hyperthermia.

Indexed as

hyperthermiare-irradiation

Identifiers

PMID36765699
PMCPMC9913630

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.