ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2025
Adaptive radiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer with daily adapt-to-shape workflow on 1.5 T MRI-linac: Preliminary outcomes and comparison with helical tomotherapy.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oropharynx: Primary Surgery or (Chemo)radiotherapy?Head & neck · 2026Review
- Magnetic Resonance Guided Radical Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer in the Presence of Bilateral Hip Prostheses: First Experience With a 1.5 T Magnetic Resonance Linear Accelerator.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Radiotherapy for primary bone tumors: current techniques and integration of artificial intelligence-a review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Development and Validation of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Adaptive Radiotherapy Workflow for Long, Continuous Planning Target Volumes.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: MR-linac could offer several advantages for radical radiochemotherapy (RCHT) in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) patients. Currently, only a few case series have been published and no comparison with other techniques have been performed. Methods: Data of 34 consecutive patients treated from September 2022 to May 2024 at a single Institution with RCHT on Unity® MR-linac for OPSCC with daily adaptive radiotherapy (RT) according to the adapt-to-shape (ATS) workflow were prospectively analyzed. A comparative cohort of 34 patients with similar characteristics treated with helical treatment on Radixact® was retrieved. Results: Characteristics were well balanced across the two groups. Maximal toxicity grade ≥2 rate was borderline higher at RT end in MRI-linac group (p 0.049), but lower one month after RT (76.5 % vs 91.2 %; p = 0.257).Non-significantly lower rates of grade ≥2 xerostomia and dysgeusia were reported in Unity® group one and three months after RT. Higher rates of hospitalizations were reported in Radixact group at 20 fractions and at RT end (64.1 % vs 35.3 %; p = 0.015). Mean Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was higher in Unity group three months after RT (87.67 vs 83.87; p = 0.038).After a median follow up of 361.5 days, local complete response was reported for 93.6 % of patients treated with Unity® and 96.8 % of patients treated with Radixact®. Conclusions: Results of this analysis support the feasibility of an ATS MR-linac workflow for RCHT in OPSCC. Compared with tomotherapy, treatment with Unity® resulted in significantly lower rates of hospitalization and higher KPS three months after RT. Grade 2 xerostomia and dysgeusia rates were non-significantly lower in Unity group. Optimal results in terms of local control were reported for both techniques.
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.