ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2025
Acute enteritis with pelvic SBRT: Influence of bowel delineation methods.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Clarifying gastrointestinal toxicity attribution in WP-SBRT: Commentary on Dinesan et al. and proposal of a bladder-bowel displacement index.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Unmasking enteritis: reply to commentary titled "Clarifying Gastrointestinal toxicity attribution in WP-SBRT: A commentary on Dinesan et al. and proposal of a bladder-bowel displacement index".Clinical and translational radiation 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: One fourth of the patients receiving SBRT to prostate and pelvis develop mild to moderate acute enteritis. In this study, we aim to study bowel dosimetry for different methods of bowel delineation in patients with and without acute bowel toxicity after whole-pelvic SBRT (WP-SBRT). Methods and materials: In this prospective study, patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with WP-SBRT were identified. Patients with acute bowel toxicity (CTCAE v5.0) were included as cases while those without were controls. All the patients had previously received 35-36.25 Gy in 5 fractions to the prostate and 25 Gy in 5 fractions to the pelvis. The bowel was contoured on the planning CT scan using seven different methods, namely- bowel bag (BB), small bowel loop (SB), large bowel loop (LB), combined bowel loop (BL) and bowel loops with margins (BL + 0.5 cm, BL + 1 cm and BL + 1.5 cm). The original clinically used plan was applied to all the contouring methods and dose-volume parameters studied. Results: A total of 102 patients treated with WP-SBRT were screened and only those with properly documented acute toxicity were included for further analysis. While none of the patients had grade 3 bowel toxicity, 23 (22.5 %) patients had grade 1-2 acute enteritis, and 23 patients without were selected as cases and controls respectively. On visual assessment, the composite dose volume histogram (DVH) were similar for cases and controls for all the delineation methods studied. Objectively, the volume of the bowel structures receiving 7 Gy, 14 Gy, and 25 Gy did not show any statistically significant difference between cases and controls. One in five patients treated with WP-SBRT using bowel bag dose constraints of V Conclusion: There was no significant difference in planned bowel doses for different bowel delineation methods in patients with prostate cancer treated with WP-SBRT with or without acute bowel toxicity.
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.