Elapsed treatment days--a critical item for radiotherapy quality control review in head and neck trials: RTOG report
Abstract
For all randomized trials since 1978, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group has required the study chairman for radiation therapy to review the treatment given to each patient. The chairman scores the compliance of the treatment borders, total dose, fraction, and total elapsed time relative to the protocol prescription at the primary site, regional nodes, and any critical structure. The individual parameters are then considered together to derive an "overall" treatment score. For two RTOG head and neck studies in patients with moderately and very advanced carcinomas, the "overall" treatment was classified as unacceptable if the treatment at primary was scored unacceptable with respect to dose, fractionation, and field borders. However, prolonged elapsed treatment was not included. Analysis of these studies with 426 evaluable patients was performed to assess the relationship of unacceptable "overall" treatment compliance with outcome. Patients with prolonged treatment elapsed days (14 days beyond the protocol prescription) exhibited significantly poorer loco-regional control (13% vs. 27% at 3 years with p = .007) and absolute survival (13% vs. 26% at 3 years with p = .01). As a result, the criteria for unacceptable "overall" treatment were revised to include prolonged elapsed treatment days. Further multivariate analyses showed the revised criteria identified patients with significantly poorer loco-regional control and absolute survival even after adjusting for other prognostic…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
RTIs, especially total interruptions of >5 days, lead to accelerated tumor cell repopulation and radioresistance and poorer clinical outcomes, particularly for fast-growing carcinomas such as head and neck cancers.
“RTIs, especially total interruptions of >5 days, lead to accelerated tumor cell repopulation and radioresistance9 and poorer clinical outcomes,10, 11, 12, 13, 14 particularly for fast-growing carcinomas such as head and neck cancers.15”
From X-CART: a multimodal real-world data pipeline for explainable AI-driven patient navigation in radiation oncology (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zink, J. A., Rashid, R., Chinthala, L., Kheirinejad, S., White, B. M., Kheirkhah Rahimabad, P., Hashtarkhani, S., Kumsa, F. A., Brett, C. L., Davis, R. L., et al. (2026) · ESMO Real World Data and Digital Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.esmorw.2026.100771 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pajak, T. F., Laramore, G. E., Marcial, V. A., Fazekas, J. T., Cooper, J., Rubin, P., Curran, W. J., & Davis, L. W.
- Venue
- International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1991-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 13-20
- ISSN
- 0360-3016
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review