Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38047226›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

The Pediatric Proton and Photon Therapy Comparison Cohort: Study Design for a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort to Investigate Subsequent Cancers After Pediatric Radiation Therapy.

Amy Berrington de González, Todd M Gibson, Choonsik Lee, Paul S Albert, Keith T Griffin, Cari Meinhold Kitahara, Danping Liu, Matthew M Mille, Jungwook Shin, Benjamin V M Bajaj and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Current state of proton therapy for tumors of the central nervous system in Spain: physical bases, indications, controversies and perspectives.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

23 authors.

Amy Berrington de GonzálezDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Todd M GibsonDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Choonsik LeeDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Paul S AlbertDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Keith T GriffinDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Cari Meinhold KitaharaDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Danping LiuDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Matthew M MilleDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Jungwook ShinDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Benjamin V M BajajDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Tristin E FloodDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sara L GallottoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Harald PaganettiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Safia K AhmedDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Bree R EatonRadiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Daniel J IndelicatoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida.
Sarah A MilgromDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
Joshua D PalmerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Sujith BaligaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Matthew M PoppeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Utah-Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Derek S TsangRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kenneth WongRadiation Oncology Program, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Torunn I YockDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The physical properties of protons lower doses to surrounding normal tissues compared with photons, potentially reducing acute and long-term adverse effects, including subsequent cancers. The magnitude of benefit is uncertain, however, and currently based largely on modeling studies. Despite the paucity of directly comparative data, the number of proton centers and patients are expanding exponentially. Direct studies of the potential risks and benefits are needed in children, who have the highest risk of radiation-related subsequent cancers. The Pediatric Proton and Photon Therapy Comparison Cohort aims to meet this need. Methods and Materials: We are developing a record-linkage cohort of 10,000 proton and 10,000 photon therapy patients treated from 2007 to 2022 in the United States and Canada for pediatric central nervous system tumors, sarcomas, Hodgkin lymphoma, or neuroblastoma, the pediatric tumors most frequently treated with protons. Exposure assessment will be based on state-of-the-art dosimetry facilitated by collection of electronic radiation records for all eligible patients. Subsequent cancers and mortality will be ascertained by linkage to state and provincial cancer registries in the United States and Canada, respectively. The primary analysis will examine subsequent cancer risk after proton therapy compared with photon therapy, adjusting for potential confounders and accounting for competing risks. Results: For the primary aim comparing overall subsequent cancer rates between proton and photon therapy, we estimated that with 10,000 patients in each treatment group there would be 80% power to detect a relative risk of 0.8 assuming a cumulative incidence of subsequent cancers of 2.5% by 15 years after diagnosis. To date, 9 institutions have joined the cohort and initiated data collection; additional centers will be added in the coming year(s). Conclusions: Our findings will affect clinical practice for pediatric patients with cancer by providing the first large-scale systematic comparison of the risk of subsequent cancers from proton compared with photon therapy.

Identifiers

PMID38047226
PMCPMC10692298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.