ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2025
A prospective audit of thoracic reirradiation practice and peer-review in a high-volume academic center.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reirradiation is an increasingly common challenge with limited prospective evidence to guide practice, which varies internationally. This paper presents the patterns of practice in thoracic reirradiation within a high-volume academic center. Methods: Thoracic reirradiation cases, discussed at the thoracic radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) meeting, were prospectively collected over 12 months between April 2024 and March 2025. Data collected included patient demographics, primary tumor site, details of previous and current planned radiotherapy, the extent and type of overlap and any treatment plan modifications. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: 85 (18.2 % of 466 cases) reirradiation cases were identified at 26 QA meetings. Most reirradiation plans (68.2 %) were of radical intent, with dose overlap (89.4 %, n = 76). Challenges included unreliable registration of prior radiotherapy datasets (16.5 %) and deciding appropriate plan modifications to improve safety: 24.7 % optimized dose distribution to an OAR, 23.5 % involved dose reductions from standard prescriptions and 15.3 % compromised target volume coverage. The most frequently identified dose-limiting OARs were the proximal bronchial tree, esophagus, and spinal cord. Concerns about a lack of normal tissue recovery arose in 7.1 % of cases. In 10.6 % of cases there was explicit discussion of a dose discount for OARs for presumed partial tissue recovery. Peer-review prompted revision of the treatment plan in 11.8 % of cases. Conclusion: These findings underscore the complexity of thoracic reirradiation and highlight the need for further guidance in the area and the role of QA rounds in optimizing safety and treatment decisions while best practice remains uncertain.
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.