ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2026
Integrating submandibular gland transfer with proton therapy to preserve salivary function.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Submandibular gland (SMG) transfer to the submental space in patients undergoing head and neck radiation therapy was historically performed to decrease radiation-associated xerostomia in the era of 2D/3D radiotherapy. In this study, we evaluated the dosimetric significance of SMG transfer with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Methods: We reviewed patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma who received curative intent definitive radiation and had contralateral (C/L) SMG transfer. We registered the baseline diagnostic computed tomography (CT) scan of these patients with the CT simulation images and delineated pre-transfer and post-transfer SMG locations. IMPT pre-transfer plans were generated, taking into consideration the initial reference SMG position, and then re-optimized based on the post-transfer SMG position. Each patients' dosimetric parameters from both plans were compared for mean SMG doses, target coverage and other OAR doses. Results: Seventeen patients were included in the analysis. All patients received definitive radiation (66-70 Gy/30-35 fractions). Pre-transfer plans had a C/L SMG mean dose of 32.92 Gy (range [R]: 17.82-47.6 Gy), which decreased to 20.22 Gy (R: 9.75-38.87 Gy), Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrates that SMG transfer enables better C/L SMG dose sparing during IMPT. Future prospective studies with larger patient cohorts are warranted to support clinical translation.
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.