ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2024
Dosimetric benefits of customised mouth-bite for head neck cancer patients undergoing modern proton therapy - An audit.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Proton therapy (PRT) for Head Neck Cancer (HNC), in view of the Bragg peak, spares critical structures like oral mucosa better than IMRT. In PRT, mouth-bites, besides immobilising and separating mucosal surfaces, may also negate the end-of-range effect. We retrospectively analysed the details and dosimetric impact of mouth-bites in PRT for HNC. Materials and methods: The data of consecutive HNC patients treated with IMPT from May 2020 to August 2022 were studied retrospectively. Details of the mouth-bite used, compliance and resultant mucosal separation were noted. Further analysis, restricted to previously unirradiated patients, comprised volumetric dosimetric data pertaining to the mouth-bite and distal mucosal surfaces. High LET zones, corresponding to 6-12 keV/micron, for mouth-bite doses above 30 Gy, were recalculated from existing plans. Results: A mouth-bite was used in 69 of 80 consecutively treated patients, ranging from 8 to 42 mm in thickness, and 12 to 52 mm in the resultant mucosal sparing. In 42 patients in whom the mouth-bite V 32 Gy was > 0, median Dmean, absolute V32, V39, V50 and V60 GyE (Gray Equivalent) of the mouth bite was 35.65 GyE (Range: 2.65 - 60 GyE), 10 cc (Range: 0.1 - 32 cc), 7.6 cc (Range: 0.1 - 30.8 cc), 5.7 cc (Range: 0.2 - 29.2 cc) and 1.45 cc (Range: 0.2 - 18.1 cc) respectively, all significantly more than the spared adjacent mucosal surface. In absence of a mouth-bite, the spared mucosa would have at least partially received the high dose received by the mouth-bite. High LET zones were noted in 12 of 48 mouth-bites. Conclusion: In PRT for HNC, mouth-bites play a vital role in improving the sparing of mucosa outside the target.
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.