ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2026
Cardiac substructure-guided radiotherapy planning for esophageal cancer: a novel strategy for cardiotoxicity reduction.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundA novel method was proposed to protect the sensitive cardiac substructures in esophageal cancer patients and reduce the risk of cardiotoxicity.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted on 20 patients with esophageal cancer. For each patient, a conventional clinical plan (c-IMRT) and a plan to protect sensitive cardiac substructures (p-IMRT) were designed. Dosimetric parameters of the two plans were calculated. The tumor control probability (TCP) of the target and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of normal tissue were compared between two plans. Paired sample t test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used in to assess significant differences (p < 0.05) between data set.
resultsIn the p-IMRT plans, the dose covering 2% of planning target volume (PTV) (D2) and homogeneity index (HI) of PTV were significantly higher than those in c-IMRT plans, D98 of PTV was significantly lower than that in c-IMRT plans. No significant differences in other indicators. The percentages of total lung volume receiving ≥ 5 Gy and 20 Gy (V5 and V20), as well as the maximum dose (Dmax) to the spinal cord, were comparable between the p-IMRT and c-IMRT plans. Compared with the c-IMRT plans, the p-IMRT plans significantly reduced the dose of six sensitive cardiac substructures, include left ventricle (LV), pulmonary artery (PA), left main artery (LMA), left anterior descending artery (LAD), left circumflex (LCX) and right coronary artery (RCA). Mean dose (Dmean) of LMA, LAD, LCX and RCA decreased by 23.41%, 45.45%, 27.84% and 28.18%, respectively. Dmax of LCX and RCA decreased by 12.42%, 27.32%, 22.03% and 24.62%. Notably, the NTCP of the heart in the p-IMRT plans (0.10 ± 0.11‰) was significantly lower than that in c-IMRT plans (0.13 ± 0.09‰).
conclusionsThe research shows that the novel method for protecting sensitive cardiac substructures can effectively reduce the dose of cardiac substructures without significantly increasing the dose of other organs at risk (OARs). By delineating sensitive cardiac substructures, it could significantly decrease the NTCP of the heart while increasing TCP of the target, thereby improving the quality of clinical plans.
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.