ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of acute ocular toxicity after definitive-intent radiation therapy in canine sinonasal tumors.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute toxicity and survival were documented in dogs undergoing radiotherapy for sinonasal tumors. However, few studies specifically investigated ocular toxicity, resulting in limited data on radiation tolerance thresholds. This study aimed to quantify acute ocular toxicity, compare toxicity levels using three different scoring systems, and establish practical preliminary dose-response limits. Dogs with sinonasal tumors treated with a definitive-intent 10-fraction radiotherapy protocol were included if they underwent prospective ophthalmic examinations, both prior to radiotherapy and at least once within three months following treatment. Ocular toxicity was assessed using three scoring systems: 1) Modified McDonald-Shadduck (evaluated by ophthalmologists), 2) Veterinary Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (VRTOG) 1.0 (evaluated by radiation oncologists), and 3) VRTOG2.0 (evaluated retrospectively). Radiation doses to each eye, retina, cornea, lacrimal, and accessory lacrimal gland were documented, and adherence to the new institutional ocular dose constraints was analyzed. Seventy client-owned dogs (140 eyes) were enrolled between 2016 and 2024, yielding 241 ophthalmic examinations. Clinically relevant ocular toxicity was identified in 28 eyes (20%) according to the modified McDonald-Shadduck system, 14 eyes (10%) using the VRTOG1.0 system (grade ≥2), and in 15 eyes (11%) using VRTOG2.0 toxicity (grade ≥3). Adherence to our institutional constraints resulted in low rates of clinically relevant toxicity: only 0.7% of eyes according to VRTOG 1.0 and 1.4% according to VRTOG2.0. TD5% and TD50% risk thresholds were established to facilitate optimized planning and reduced ocular risks. In conclusion, all dogs showed rather mild and only rarely clinically relevant ocular toxicity. Clinically relevant results of the very detailed modified McDonald-Shadduck scoring system seem to be accurately reflected by the VRTOG2.0 scoring system, which is more practical for daily clinical assessments. Detailed ocular evaluations are recommended primarily for dogs with clinically relevant VRTOG2.0 toxicity. Adherence to institutional ocular dose constraints significantly minimizes the risk of clinically relevant ocular 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.