Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33305099›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

A Dosimetric Comparison of Oral Cavity Sparing in the Unilateral Treatment of Early Stage Tonsil Cancer: IMRT, IMPT, and Tongue-Deviating Oral Stents.

Stephen R Grant, Tyler D Williamson, Sonja Stieb, Shalin J Shah, C David Fuller, David I Rosenthal, Steven J Frank, Adam S Garden, William H Morrison, Jack Phan and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Probiotics in the management of radiation-induced oral mucositis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Review
  2. Protective and positioning devices in maxillofacial prosthodontics and radiotherapy: Overview.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022
    Review
  3. Development of a customisable 3D-printed intra-oral stent for head-and-neck radiotherapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022
    Article
  4. Pathogenesis and Amelioration of Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephen R GrantDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Tyler D WilliamsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Sonja StiebDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Shalin J ShahDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
C David FullerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
David I RosenthalDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Steven J FrankDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Adam S GardenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
William H MorrisonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Jack PhanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Amy C MorenoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Jay P ReddyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Richard C CardosoDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Amy Y LiuDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Richard Y WuDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
G Brandon GunnDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTongue-deviating oral stents (TDOS) are commonly used during unilateral neck radiation therapy to reduce unnecessary dose to nontarget oral structures. Their benefit in the setting of highly conformal treatment techniques, however, is not defined. The goal of this study was to investigate the potential benefit of TDOS use on dosimetric parameters in unilateral intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT).

methodsA total of 16 patients with T1-2 tonsil cancer treated at a single institution were selected, of which 8 were simulated/treated with a TDOS and 8 without a TDOS. All received definitive unilateral IMRT to a dose of 66 Gy in 30 fx. IMPT plans were generated for each patient for study purposes and optimized according to standard institutional practice.

resultsFor IMRT plans, the presence of a TDOS (vs without) was associated with a significantly lower oral mucosa mean dose (31.4 vs 35.3 Gy;

conclusionThe use of a TDOS for the unilateral treatment of well-lateralized tonsil cancers was associated with oral mucosa sparing for IMRT, but not for IMPT. Moreover, mucosa sparing was improved for IMPT plans without a TDOS compared to IMRT plans with a TDOS.

Identifiers

PMID33305099
PMCPMC7718552
OpenAlexW3080624421

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.