ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2026
A risk-adapted, dose-optimized esophagus-sparing radiation therapy technique for high-risk patients with lung cancer: feasibility, dosimetry, and acute esophageal toxicity.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcute radiation-induced esophagitis (ARIE) remains a clinically significant toxicity during definitive thoracic radiation therapy (TRT), particularly in patients with close esophagus-planning target volume (PTV) proximity. This study evaluated a risk-adapted, dose-optimized esophagus-sparing (ES) strategy designed to reduce ARIE while maintaining adequate target coverage in high-risk patients.
methodsEighty patients with lung cancer treated with definitive TRT between May 2023 and January 2025 were enrolled. The injury-effective esophagus (IEE) was defined as the local high-risk esophageal segment consisting of the central-IEE and an additional 2-cm superior and inferior cranio-caudal expansion. The central-IEE encompassed all axial levels where PTV-esophagus overlap was present, and the ES region was contoured as the portion of the IEE outside the PTV. Based on the degree of PTV/central-IEE overlap (< 1/3, 1/3-2/3, > 2/3), the ES mean dose was constrained to 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 of the prescribed dose, respectively. ARIE was graded using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined from initiation of the TRT to progression or death; overall survival (OS) was also evaluated.
resultsAmong 80 high-risk patients with the esophagus located within 5 mm of the clinical target volume (CTV), ARIE occurred in 24 patients (30.0%), including only one Grade 3 event and no Grade ≥ 4 toxicity. For contextual reference, the incidence of any-grade ARIE in a pre-ES historical benchmark cohort was 76.5%. In a paired dosimetric comparison of 10 cases, the ES strategy reduced esophageal dose exposure, particularly within the ES region, while substantially preserving target coverage and maintaining acceptable organ at risk (OAR) constraints. Exploratory univariable analyses suggested associations between ARIE and concurrent chemo-immuno-radiation therapy (CIRT), the geometric extent of the ES region, higher esophageal dose exposure, and failure to pass the ES-plan. Survival outcomes were descriptive only.
conclusionsThis risk-adapted, dose-optimized segmental ES strategy appears feasible and may reduce clinically relevant ARIE with broadly preserved target coverage. Prospective validation is warranted.
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.