Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37169010›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2023

Dosimetric Comparison of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) for a Novel Oral Tongue Avoidance Concept in Low-Risk Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oral Tongue.

Robert H Press, Lei Hu, Sheng Huang, Shaakir Hasan, J Isabelle Choi, Charles B Simone, Arpit M Chhabra, Daphna Y Gelblum, Rafi Kabarriti, Richard L Bakst and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of particle therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Robert H PressNew York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA.
Lei HuNew York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA.
Sheng HuangNew York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA.
Shaakir HasanNew York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA.
J Isabelle ChoiNew York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA.
Charles B SimoneNew York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA.
Arpit M ChhabraNew York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA.
Daphna Y GelblumDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Rafi KabarritiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
Richard L BakstDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Jen R CracchioloDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Sean M McBrideDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Nancy Y LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
New York Proton Center · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USMontefiore Medical Center · 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

Purpose: After adequate surgical resection, early-stage oral tongue cancer patients can harbor a low risk of local recurrence but remain at risk of regional recurrence. Oral tongue avoidance during adjuvant radiation therapy is an attractive potential treatment strategy to mitigate treatment toxicity. We sought to quantify the dosimetric advantages of this approach and hypothesized that intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may further reduce organs at risk doses compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Materials and Methods: Five patients with oral tongue cancer treated with postoperative radiation therapy from August 2020 to September 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Novel clinical target volume contours, excluding the oral tongue, were generated while maintaining coverage of bilateral at-risk lymph nodes. Comparison IMRT (X) and IMPT (PBT) plans were generated using standard treatment volumes (control) and avoidance volumes (study) (n = 4 plans/patient). Dosimetric variables for organs at risk were compared using the paired Results: The prescribed dose was 60 Gy in 30 fractions. D95% clinical target volume coverage was similar between X and PBT plans for both control and study clinical target volumes. Comparing control with study plans, both X (58.9 Gy vs 38.3 Gy, Conclusion: This study quantifies the feasibility and dosimetric advantages of oral tongue avoidance while still treating the at-risk lymph nodes for oral tongue cancer. The dosimetric difference between PBT and X was most prominent with an oral tongue-avoidance strategy.

Indexed as

dosimetric analysisoral cavityoral tongueproton therapy

Identifiers

PMID37169010
PMCPMC10166015
OpenAlexW4321111744

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.