Trial reportJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
A controlled trial comparing dosimetry and radiation pneumonitis between tomotherapy and IMRT in patients with lung or esophageal cancer.
Trial report in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroudThe expanding clinical use of helical tomotherapy (HT) has raised concerns regarding its potential to increase low-dose lung exposure and the risk of radiation pneumonitis (RP) in thoracic radiotherapy. While a few retrospective studies have compared dosimetric parameters and RP rates between HT and fixed-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), their findings remain inconsistent, necessitating a prospective randomized controlled trial for clarification. PURPOSE: To prospectively compare dosimetric parameters and the incidence of RP between HT and IMRT in patients with lung or esophageal cancer.
methodsPatients eligible for thoracic radiotherapy were enrolled. Both HT and IMRT plans were designed and optimized for each patient, with a prescription equivalent dose in 2 Gy /fraction (EQD2) ≥50 Gy to the gross tumor volume (GTV). Plans were evaluated based on target dose coverage, dose-volume histograms, and other dosimetric indices. RP was diagnosed and graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0). Risk factors for RP were identified using univariate analysis.
resultsBetween February and September 2022, 110 consecutive patients with lung or esophageal cancer were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the HT group (n = 54) or the IMRT group (n = 56). Compared with IMRT, HT had a significant reduction in lung V20 (p = 0.002) and mean lung dose (p = 0.013). Furthermore, the HT group exhibited a superior conformity index for the planning gross tumor volume of the primary lesion (PGTVp) (p = 0.004) and a lower homogeneity index for all planning target volumes (PTVs) (p < 0.001). At a median follow-up of 14.0 months, the rate of grade≥2 RP for the entire cohort was 14.5%, with no significant differences between the HT and IMRT groups (p = 0.61).
conclusionsCompared with fixed-field IMRT, HT provided superior dose distribution to the PTVs while maintaining a comparable incidence of RP in patients undergoing thoracic radiotherapy.
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.