Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39258242›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2024

Selection for proton radiotherapy of grade 1-3 glioma patients.

C S Byskov, A Muhic, R H Dahlrot, C A Haslund, T L Guldberg, M Høyer, P W Nyström, L Dysager, S Hansen, L Haldbo-Classen and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

16 authors.

C S ByskovDept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
A MuhicDept of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
R H DahlrotDept of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
C A HaslundDept of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
T L GuldbergDept of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
M HøyerDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
P W NyströmDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
L DysagerDept of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
S HansenDept of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
L Haldbo-ClassenDept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
A K TripDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Y Lassen-RamshadDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
B WeberDept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
S LukacovaDept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
C R HansenDept of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
J F KallehaugeDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: For adult patients with grade 1-3 gliomas, identifying patients with an indication for proton therapy (PT) can be challenging due to sparse evidence supporting its benefits. In this study, we aimed to ensure national consensus and develop a decision support tool to aid clinicians in identifying patients with grade 1-3 gliomas eligible for PT. Methods: Sixty-one historic patients referred for postoperative radiotherapy for glioma grade 1-3 were included in this study and had new photon therapy and PT plans calculated. These plans along with clinical parameters were presented to neurooncologists with experience in treating brain tumours. The patients were presented at three workshops (WSs), where each neurooncologist individually had to choose between photon and proton therapy. Important parameters were selected using cross validation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict the neurooncologists' treatment modality choice. Results: At the three WSs 23, 24 and 19 randomly selected patients were presented. Seventy-five percent of the neurooncologists agreed for 14 patients (61%), 16 patients (67%) and 15 patients (79%) at WS1, WS2 and WS3. Age at radiotherapy and difference in mean dose (ΔDmean) to the residual brain were significant predictors of the choice of treatment modality, p < 0.001. Model coefficients were: β Conclusion: Higher degree of agreement was reached. Age and ΔDmean to the residual brain significantly predicted the choice of radiation modality. We have developed a decision support model which may aid in the selection of patients with glioma grade 1-3 to PT.

Indexed as

Decision supportLower-grade gliomasPatient selectionRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID39258242
PMCPMC11386033

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.