Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39453532›Full record

SynthesisLa Radiologia medica2024

A systematic review on the role of interventional radiotherapy for treatment of anal squamous cell cancer: multimodal and multidisciplinary therapeutic approach.

Maria Concetta Campisi, Valentina Lancellotta, Bruno Fionda, Martina De Angeli, Stefania Manfrida, Patrizia Cornacchione, Gabriella Macchia, Alessio Giuseppe Morganti, Gian Carlo Mattiucci, Maria Antonietta Gambacorta and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in La Radiologia medica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors.

Maria Concetta CampisiU.O.C. Radioterapia Oncologica, Ospedale Maria Paternò Arezzo, Ragusa, Italy.
Valentina LancellottaUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento Di Diagnostica Per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica Ed Ematologia,, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. valentina.lancellotta@policlinicogemelli.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3507-7051
Bruno FiondaUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento Di Diagnostica Per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica Ed Ematologia,, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Martina De AngeliUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento Di Diagnostica Per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica Ed Ematologia,, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Stefania ManfridaUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento Di Diagnostica Per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica Ed Ematologia,, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Patrizia CornacchioneUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento Di Diagnostica Per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica Ed Ematologia,, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Gabriella MacchiaRadiation Oncology Unit, Responsible Research Hospital, Campobasso, Italy.
Alessio Giuseppe MorgantiDipartimento Di Medicina Specialistica, Diagnostica E Sperimentale Settore Scientifico Disciplinare, Università Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Gian Carlo MattiucciMater Olbia Hospital, Olbia, Italy.
Maria Antonietta GambacortaUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento Di Diagnostica Per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica Ed Ematologia,, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Roberto IezziDipartimento Di Diagnostica Per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica Ed Ematologia-U.O.C. Radiologia Diagnostica E Interventistica Generale, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Luca TagliaferriUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento Di Diagnostica Per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica Ed Ematologia,, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAim was to compare the efficacy of interventional radiotherapy (IRT) boost vs. external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost after chemoradiation (CCRT) in patients with anal cancer (AC).

methodsThe P.I.C.O. framework was: in patients with AC [P], is IRT boost [I] superior to EBRT boost [C] in terms of local control (LC), cancer specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), distant meta-static free Survival (DMFS), colostomy free survival (CFS) and toxicity [O]?

results651 patients were analyzed. The median 5-year locoregional control rates was 87.8% in the IRT boost group versus 72.8% in the EBRT boost group. The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 91% in the IRT boost group versus 78% in the EBRT boost group. 5-years overall survival was 74.6% in IRT boost versus 67.7% in the EBRT boost. 5-years disease metastasis-free survival rate was 92.9% in IRT boost group vs. 85.6% for the EBRT boost group. Cancer-free survival rate was 76.8% in the IRT group vs. 63.1% in the EBRT boost group. Acute toxicity above grade 2 was less common in the IRT boost group while chronic toxicity was similar between both groups.

conclusionIRT boost after CCRT could lead to better outcomes than EBRT boost in treating AC.

Indexed as

Anus NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Squamous CellChemoradiotherapyCombined Modality TherapyHumansAnal cancerBoostBrachytherapyExternal beam radiation therapyInterventional radiotherapyOutcomes

Identifiers

PMID39453532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.