ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026
Early Clinical Outcomes and Local Control Following Spine Stereotactic Proton Ablative Radiation Therapy.
Article 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the local control (LC) outcomes and safety profile of stereotactic proton ablative radiation therapy (SPAR) for spine metastases in a highly selected patient population, with emphasis on reirradiation cases. Methods and Materials: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who received SPAR between June 2015 and October 2019. Treatments were delivered in 1 to 5 fractions with a median of 3 fractions. The median prescription dose was 39 Gy (range, 20-60 Gy) to the high-dose clinical target volume (CTV) and 24 Gy (range, 16-50 Gy) to the low-dose CTV. All treatments were delivered using pencil-beam scanning proton therapy with single-field or multifield optimization. LC was assessed per spine response assessment in neuro-oncology (SPINO) criteria using follow-up imaging. Survival and recurrence outcomes were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Acute and late adverse events (AEs) were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. Results: Forty-two patients (47 lesions) were treated with SPAR, with 66% treated in the reirradiation setting. With a median imaging follow-up of 13 months, 1- and 2-year LC rates were both 74% (95% CI, 58%-91%). Ten lesions progressed locally (8 in-field, 2 marginal), most commonly within the vertebral body. No significant predictors of progression were identified aside from low-dose CTV and D95%. Acute AEs included 9 pain flares and one grade 3 dermatitis. Late AEs included 3 vertebral compression fractures and one grade 3 peripheral neuropathy. No cases of radiation myelopathy were observed. Conclusions: SPAR provides durable LC with acceptable toxicity in a highly selected patient population. These findings support the feasibility of SPAR in complex or reirradiation cases, though broader applicability may be limited by access to high-precision proton therapy systems.
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.