ArticleOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2026
Auditory Preservation in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Comparison of Proton and Photon Radiotherapy.
Article in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare cochlear dose and hearing outcomes between intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). STUDY
designProspective matched cohorts.
settingTertiary academic center.
methodsA total of 180 newly diagnosed, treatment-naive NPC patients receiving definitive radiotherapy between 2023 and 2025 were enrolled. Patients were 1:1 matched by sex, age, and disease stage, and assigned to IMPT (n = 90) or VMAT (n = 90). Mean cochlear dose was recorded. Audiological evaluations, including pure-tone audiometry (PTA), air-bone gap, and word recognition score, were performed before and after treatment.
resultsIMPT delivered significantly lower mean doses to the ipsilateral (47.51 vs 56.82 Gy, P < .001; 95% CI: -14.27 to -4.35) and contralateral cochlea (30.79 vs 45.71 Gy, P < .001; 95% CI: -18.93 to -10.91). Based on each patient's most recent audiometric assessment (median follow-up, 12.1 months; range, 7.5-19.5 months), IMPT demonstrated better average PTA thresholds than VMAT (33.72 vs 42.00 dB; P = .016; 95% CI, -14.91 to -1.65), superior high-frequency hearing at 2 to 8 kHz (37.94 vs 53.82 dB; P < .001; 95% CI, -23.69 to -8.07), lower air-bone gap (5.67 vs 10.62 dB; P < .001; 95% CI, -6.80 to -3.10), and higher word recognition scores (96.67% vs 94.00%; P = .039; 95% CI, 0.14-5.20), with less bone conduction loss at 1 to 4 kHz.
conclusionIMPT reduces cochlear dose compared to VMAT, resulting in better hearing preservation and suggesting its potential to minimize ototoxicity in NPC patients.
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.