Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42649851›Full record

ArticleCancers2026

Radiotherapy Technique Determines the Magnitude and Persistence of T-Lymphocyte DNA Damage.

Zsuzsa S Kocsis, Péter Ágoston, Gyöngyi Farkas, Gábor Székely, Gyöngyvér Orsolya Sándor, Kliton Jorgo, László Gesztesi, Tibor Major, Csilla Pesznyák, András Herein and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Zsuzsa S KocsisDepartment of Clinical Radiobiology and Onco-Cytogenetics and The National Tumor Biology Laboratory, Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-4336-3325
Péter ÁgostonDepartment of Radiotherapy, Semmelweis University, 1085 Budapest, Hungary.
Gyöngyi FarkasDepartment of Clinical Radiobiology and Onco-Cytogenetics, Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.
Gábor SzékelyDepartment of Clinical Radiobiology and Onco-Cytogenetics, Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0009-0008-3145-313X
Gyöngyvér Orsolya SándorDepartment of Clinical Radiobiology and Onco-Cytogenetics, Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-0838-2838
Kliton JorgoDepartment of Radiotherapy, Semmelweis University, 1085 Budapest, Hungary.
László GesztesiCentre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.
Tibor MajorDepartment of Radiotherapy, Semmelweis University, 1085 Budapest, Hungary.
Csilla PesznyákCentre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-5815-0974
András HereinCentre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.
Gábor StelczerCentre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.
Dalma MihályCentre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.
Georgina FröhlichCentre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-6428-6536
Zoltán Takácsi-NagyDepartment of Radiotherapy, Semmelweis University, 1085 Budapest, Hungary.
Csaba PolgárDepartment of Radiotherapy, Semmelweis University, 1085 Budapest, Hungary.
Zsolt JurányiDepartment of Clinical Radiobiology and Onco-Cytogenetics and The National Tumor Biology Laboratory, Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

National Research, Development and Innovation Office 2020-1.1.6-JÖVŐ-2021-00008National Research, Development and Innovation Office 2022-2.1.1-NL-2022-00010National Research, Development and Innovation Office TKP2021-EGA-44
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are limited data comparing the effect of different radiotherapy techniques on healthy cells in the same patient group. Furthermore, assessing radiotherapy-induced T-lymphocyte damage may be important given the increasing use of immunotherapy. We aimed to measure and compare DNA damage in T-lymphocytes after four types of radiotherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer and monitor their persistence for five years.

methodsA prospective comparison of patients receiving conventional LINAC (linear accelerator) (70-78 Gy), CyberKnife teletherapy (37.5-40 Gy), low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR; 145 Gy) and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR; 19-21 Gy was performed using the chromosome aberration technique (at 3, 6, 9, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months, 192 patients). Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to assess the predictive potential of chromosome aberrations for toxicities.

resultsWe found that teletherapy techniques (conventional LINAC and CyberKnife therapy) caused 1.6-3.6-fold more chromosomal aberrations than brachytherapy. At three months, 4.4-13.1% of T-lymphocytes were damaged. Five years after treatment, the total aberration values of conventional LINAC and LDR brachytherapy patients were still significantly higher than those before treatment (

conclusionsWe observed a lower chromosome aberration frequency and fewer toxicities in brachytherapy patients. We also demonstrated that long-term T-lymphocyte damage depends on the type of radiotherapy.

Indexed as

brachytherapychromosome aberrationsCyberKnifeDNA damageimmune cell doseT-lymphocyte damage

Identifiers

PMID42649851
PMCPMC13511478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.