Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40687306›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025

Dose-response mapping of bladder and rectum in prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy with and without baseline toxicity correction.

Tanuj Puri, Tiziana Rancati, Petra Seibold, Adam Webb, Eliana Vasquez Osorio, Andrew Green, Eliana Gioscio, David Azria, Marie-Pierre Farcy-Jacquet, Jenny Chang-Claude and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

28 authors.

Tanuj PuriDivision of Cancer Sciences, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, The University of Manchester, UK.
Tiziana RancatiData Science Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Petra SeiboldDivision of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Adam WebbUniversity of Leicester, UK.
Eliana Vasquez OsorioDivision of Cancer Sciences, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, The University of Manchester, UK.
Andrew GreenEMBL's European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridge, UK.
Eliana GioscioData Science Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
David AzriaL'Institut du Cancer de Montpellier, Department of Radiation Oncology, Montpellier, France.
Marie-Pierre Farcy-JacquetCentre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Nîmes, Nimes, France.
Jenny Chang-ClaudeDivision of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Alison DunningUniversity of Cambridge, UK.
Maarten LambrechtDepartment of Oncology, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Barbara AvuzziUnit of radiotherapy 1, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Dirk de RuysscherMaastricht University Medical Center, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology Grow, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Elena SperkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Germany.
Ana VegaGrupo Genética en Cáncer y Enfermedades Raras, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, and, Fundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Liv VeldemanGhent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Barry RosensteinMount Sinai Hospital, New York, USA.
Jane ShortallDivision of Cancer Sciences, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, The University of Manchester, UK.
Sarah KernsMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA.
Christopher TalbotUniversity of Leicester, UK.
Andrew P MorrisDivision of Musculoskeletal & Dermatological Sciences, The University of Manchester, UK.
Alan McWilliamDivision of Cancer Sciences, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, The University of Manchester, UK.
Peter HoskinDivision of Cancer Sciences, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, The University of Manchester, UK.
Ananya ChoudhuryDivision of Cancer Sciences, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, The University of Manchester, UK.
Catharine WestDivision of Cancer Sciences, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, The University of Manchester, UK.
Marcel van HerkDivision of Cancer Sciences, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, The University of Manchester, UK.
REQUITE Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Radiotherapy dose-response maps (DRM) combine dose-surface maps (DSM) and toxicity outcomes to identify high-risk subregions in organ-at-risk. This study assesses the impact of baseline toxicity correction on the identification of high-risk subregions in dose-response modeling for prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Materials and methods: The analysis included 1808 datasets, with 589 exclusions before toxicity-specific data removal. Bladder/rectum were automatically segmented on planning computed tomography scans, DSMs unwrapped into 91x90 voxel grids, and converted to equivalent doses in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2; α/β = 1 Gy). Seventeen late toxicities were assessed with two methods: (i) baseline toxicity subtracted from the maximum of 12- and 24-months toxicity scores, dichotomized at grade 1, and (ii) maximum of 12- and 24-months toxicity scores dichotomized at grade 1. DSMs were split accordingly, and voxel-wise t-values computed using Welch's t-equation. Statistically significant voxels were identified via the 95th percentile of maximum of t-value (Tmax) distribution. Results: Event counts with baseline correction were 82/82/286/226 for urinary tract obstruction/retention/urgency/incontinence, respectively; without baseline correction, they were 93/104/465/361. For bladder DSMs, urinary incontinence, obstruction, retention, and urgency had 1143/186, 1768/1848, 516/0, and 33/0 significant voxels without/with baseline correction. For rectum DSMs, urinary incontinence and tract obstruction had 604/0 and 1980/889 significant voxels without/with baseline correction. However, no significant associations between rectal DSMs and rectum-related toxicities were found. Conclusions: DRM without baseline correction appears more sensitive to high-risk subregions due to higher event counts. Non-linear toxicity grading and multivariable analysis may enhance DRM reliability.

Indexed as

Dose-toxicity modelingIBDMOrgan-at-riskProstate cancerRadiotherapyVBA

Identifiers

PMID40687306
PMCPMC12272478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.