ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of Different Regimens of Palliative Radiation Therapy for Symptomatic Bone Metastases: An Audit From a Tertiary Care Hospital in Jharkhand, India.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study aimed to assess the efficacy of different radiation therapy regimens in treating patients with symptomatic bone metastases. Methodology A retrospective study was conducted by assigning patients with symptomatic bone metastases from different primary cancers into three groups, namely, Arms A, B, and C. The radiation dose delivered in each arm was as follows: 8 Gray (Gy) in a single fraction for Arm A, 20 Gy in five fractions at the rate of 4 Gy per fraction for Arm B, and 30 Gy in 10 fractions at the rate of 3 Gy per fraction for Arm C. Each arm consisted of 15 patients. A comparison was conducted across all three arms to evaluate pain relief based on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), performance score improvement based on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), and analgesic requirement based on the World Health Organization (WHO) step ladder at one week, one month, and three months. Results The pain relief was measured using the VAS in three different arms, i.e., Arm A, B, and C. After one week, the pain relief was 66.67%, 60%, and 60%, respectively. After one month, it was 73.33% in all three arms. At three months, it was 80%, 86.67%, and 86.67%, respectively. The study also measured the improvement in the ECOG performance score. The improvement in all three arms was 60% after one week and 66.67% in Arm A and 73.33% in Arms B and C after one month. After three months, the improvement was 73.33%, 80%, and 80% in Arms A, B, and C, respectively. The decrease in analgesic usage was also measured in all three arms. After one week, it was 60% in all three arms. After one month, it was 66.67%, 73.33%, and 73.33% in Arms A, B, and C, respectively. At three months, it was 73.33%, 80%, and 80% in Arms A, B, and C, respectively. No significant statistical difference was found between the three arms. Conclusions The efficacy of a single 8 Gy arm was almost equivalent to that of other arms of multifractionated regimens in terms of improvement in pain and performance score and decreased use of analgesics for a short duration of follow-up. For high-volume cancer centers and patients with economic constraints, a single-fraction regime provides effective palliation for painful bone metastases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.