ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2025
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy can reduce acute toxicities in long-course neoadjuvant radiation therapy combined with S-1 for locally advanced rectal cancer.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimizing radiation therapy for merkel cell carcinoma: evaluating prognostic factors and treatment outcomes.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and adverse events between three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients undergoing long-course neoadjuvant radiation therapy (NA-RT) for locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (LARC).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed a total of 47 consecutive patients who received NA-RT for LARC between January 2011 and September 2022. Seven and 40 patients were diagnosed with clinical stages II and III, respectively. The prescribed dose per fraction was 1.8 Gy for total doses of 45 or 50.4 Gy. Seventeen and 30 patients received 3D-CRT and IMRT, respectively. NA-RT was delivered with concurrent chemotherapy of oral administration of S-1.
resultsPlanned NA-RT was completed without any treatment interruption in 43 of the 47 patients. Two patients experienced treatment interruption, and two patients discontinued due to grade ≥ 3 toxicities. No significant differences were observed between patients receiving 3D-CRT and IMRT in local control, progression-free survival, and overall survival (P = 0.488, 0.259, and 0.636, respectively). Patients receiving IMRT showed significantly fewer non-hematological grade ≥ 2 acute toxicities than those receiving 3D-CRT (33.3% vs. 70.6%, P = 0.018). In addition, patients who received IMRT tended to have less intestinal toxicity of grade ≥ 2 than those who received 3D-CRT (P = 0.057).
conclusionIMRT significantly reduced grade ≥ 2 acute toxicities without compromising oncologic outcomes compared to 3D-CRT. Therefore, IMRT may be considered as a current standard treatment in the total neoadjuvant therapy era.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39812929What 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.