ArticlePractical radiation oncology2026
Prophylactic Versus Therapeutic Sucralfate in Patients at High Risk for Radiation Esophagitis: Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Practical radiation oncology, 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe hypothesized that, in patients at high risk for radiation esophagitis (RE), giving sucralfate prophylactically would reduce the need for opioid pain medication. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were enrolled from January 2023 to April 2025 at a single tertiary care center. Patients were randomized to receive 1 g twice a day within the first 5 fractions of radiation therapy (RT), with frequency increased during RT at the clinician's discretion, or standard supportive care. The proportion of patients who took any opioids over the previous 24 hours at the end of the treatment course was compared between groups using logistic regression with the stratification variables and concurrent chemotherapy status as covariates.
resultsThe trial was closed early due to lack of differences between arms, with 117 patients randomized (n = 56 in the experimental arm). Rates of opioid use were 30% in both groups (absolute adjusted decrease in the prophylactic sucralfate arm -0.4%; 95% CI, -14% to 13%, P > .9). Rates of grade 2 to 3 RE were nonsignificantly lower in the prophylactic sucralfate arm (59% vs 69%, absolute adjusted risk decrease 11%; 95% CI, -7.2% to 28%; P = .2). In patients receiving very high esophageal dose (V60 Gy ≥15%), all controls (n = 4) experienced grade 2 to 3 RE compared with only half of those in the experimental arm (6 of 12) (Fisher's exact test P = .2).
conclusionsWe did not find evidence to support early use of sucralfate in patients at high risk of RE. Limited medical options for the management of RE warrant the continued need to explore further avenues to combat this painful condition.
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.