ArticleCancers2025
Superior Anti-Tumor Response After Microbeam and Minibeam Radiation Therapy in a Lung Cancer Mouse Model.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The future is not always uniform: rethinking radiotherapy through spatial fractionation.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- A multidisciplinary experimental and methodological investigation of electron and proton minibeams in the framework of the INFN MIRO project.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Spatially Modulated Irradiation Alters Extracellular Vesicle MicroRNA Cargo in Rat Glioma and Astrocyte Models.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Impact of Intra-fractional respiratory motion on dose distribution in lattice radiotherapy for liver tumors.Precision radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Effects of ionizing radiations of different qualities and delivery types on blood cells.Biophysical reviews · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe present study aimed to compare the tumor growth delay between conventional radiotherapy (CRT) and the spatially fractionated modalities of microbeam radiation therapy (MRT) and minibeam radiation therapy (MBRT). In addition, we also determined the influence of beam width and the peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR) on tumor regrowth.
methodsA549, a human non-small-cell lung cancer cell line, was implanted subcutaneously into the hind leg of female CD1
resultsWe saw a significant reduction in tumor regrowth following all radiation modalities. A growth delay of 11.1 ± 8 days was observed for CRT compared to the sham, whereas MBRT showed a delay of 20.2 ± 7.3 days. The most pronounced delay was observed in mice irradiated with MRT PVDR 20, with 34.9 ± 26.3 days of delay.
conclusionsThe current study highlights the fact that MRT and MBRT modalities show a significant tumor growth delay in comparison to CRT at equivalent uniform doses.
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.