ReviewAdvances in radiation oncology2026
Critical Review of Cataractogenesis and Lens Contouring in Radiation Oncology.
Review in Advances in 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective is to comprehensively review radiation-induced cataractogenesis and recommend lens contouring guidelines to unify and improve dose reporting that informs future lens constraints. Methods and Materials: A thorough literature review was conducted to examine the anatomic, physiological, and pathologic aspects of the lens. Studies on radiation-induced cataracts, including thresholds for cataractogenesis, latency periods, and classification systems, were reviewed. Standardized lens contouring guidelines were developed for use in radiation therapy treatment planning and dose reporting. Results: The lens is a transparent, avascular structure responsible for refraction and accommodation. It is highly radiosensitive, and radiation-induced cataractogenesis most often presents as posterior subcapsular cataracts, although cortical and nuclear sclerotic changes can also occur. Key risk factors include total dose, fractionation, and dose rate. Cataracts are a well-described late effect after ocular-directed radiation therapy and other treatments that deliver clinically meaningful lens dose (eg, ocular radiation therapy/brachytherapy and total body irradiation), with incidence varying by lens dose, fractionation, patient age, and duration of follow-up. Standard assessment tools-slit-lamp examination and the Lens Opacities Classification System III-are limited by interobserver variability. Scheimpflug tomography offers a promising, objective, quantitative alternative. We present a step-by-step guide to improve consistency in lens delineation for radiation therapy planning, facilitate avoidance when feasible, and standardize lens dose reporting for future studies. Conclusions: Radiation-induced cataracts are a significant late complication of ocular, brain, total body, and head and neck radiation therapy. Standardized lens contouring guidelines and multidisciplinary collaboration with ophthalmology can improve lens-sparing and enhance detection and management of cataracts. Further research is needed to refine dose thresholds, improve assessment methods, and develop strategies to mitigate cataractogenesis.
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.