ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2025
Palliative expeditiously adaptive quad shot radiotherapy for head and neck cancers (PEAQ-RT).
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of CBCT-Guided Online Adaptive Radiotherapy.Cancers · 2026Review
- QUAD SHOT radiotherapy for palliation in advanced cancer: current status and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose/objective: Quad shot radiotherapy (QS-RT) is integral to head and neck cancer palliative care, but multiple CT-simulations for QS-RT cycles can be burdensome for patients. We evaluated the ability of an online adaptive radiotherapy (ART) workflow (PEAQ-RT) to eliminate extra CT simulations in QS-RT and reduce treatment related burdens. Materials/methods: Ten patients with head and neck malignancies were enrolled in this prospective study receiving QS-RT for up to three cycles, each comprising four fractions of 350 cGy delivered twice daily, with a total dose of 1400 cGy per cycle. QS-RT could be delivered up to three cycles, spaced three to four weeks apart. Patients underwent standard CT simulation, and the simulation plan served as the treatment plan for the first QS-RT cycle. For subsequent QS-RT cycles, patients proceeded directly to adaptive treatment via institutional online ART protocol. Feasibility was defined as completing this expedited adaptive QS-RT workflow in at least 80 % of attempted adapted fractions. Results: Ten patients aged 56-89 were enrolled. Eight patients received a second cycle of QS-RT and four patients received a third cycle. PEAQ-RT workflow was feasible in 87.5% (7/8) of patients who received at least one adapted cycle and was feasible in 86% (12/14) of attempted adapted fractions. For the second and third cycles, average total workflow time for the adaptive treatments was 28 min (14-38). All constraint violations were resolved with the use of online adaptation. The PEAQ-RT workflow eliminated a median of 2 (range: 0-2) simulation visits with additional QS-RT cycles. This resulted in a median travel distance savings of 50.8 miles (range: 40.6-848 miles) and a median reduction of 3.5 h in travel time per patient. Conclusion: PEAQ-RT enabled QS-RT while eliminating the need for additional CT simulation appointments for subsequent cycles.
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.