ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2026
Defining physician acceptance of radiosensitivity testing for guiding therapeutic interventions in head and neck cancer: A Delphi consensus study.
Article in Clinical and translational 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radiosensitivity biomarkers hold promise for personalized radiotherapy but their clinical maturity and acceptability remain uncertain in head and neck cancer (HNC). This study assessed expert consensus on the potential integration of radiosensitivity testing and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) modeling to inform therapeutic and supportive decisions. Material and methods: A Delphi consensus survey was conducted among HNC specialists to evaluate perceptions of clinical applicability, validation requirements, and integration of radiosensitivity testing to guide therapeutic interventions, including test-guided treatment modifications and combination with NTCP models. Results: A clear distinction emerged between supportive-care interventions and radiosensitivity test-guided treatment adaptations. Experts agreed that the current level of maturity of radiosensitivity biomarkers and NTCP modeling does not support major changes to primary treatment decisions outside clinical trials. Ten statements reached consensus, including IMRT as standard, individualized nutritional follow-up, and post-treatment surveillance as routine practice; one reached rejection. Partial agreement was observed for radiosensitivity testing in complex cases and for proton referral in high-risk patients, while preventive gastrostomy showed no consensus. Supportive-care measures were consistently considered acceptable in routine practice, whereas biomarker-guided treatment adaptations were mainly supported within clinical trials. External validation confirmed high concordance for supportive-care items and moderate support for trial-based biomarker-guided strategies. Conclusions: Experts considered radiosensitivity testing and NTCP modeling as promising yet not ready for routine therapeutic decision-making. Supportive-care interventions are widely accepted in routine HNC practice, whereas radiosensitivity test-guided treatment adaptations remain investigational and should currently be evaluated within clinical trials.
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.