The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Xerostomia is the most common late side-effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands. We assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence of severe xerostomia. METHODS: We undertook a randomised controlled trial between Jan 21, 2003, and Dec 7, 2007, that compared conventional radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT. We randomly assigned patients with histologically confirmed pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma (T1-4, N0-3, M0) at six UK radiotherapy centres between the two radiotherapy techniques (1:1 ratio). A dose of 60 or 65 Gy was prescribed in 30 daily fractions given Monday to Friday. Treatment was not masked. Randomisation was by computer-generated permuted blocks and was stratified by centre and tumour site. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months, as assessed by the Late Effects of Normal Tissue (LENT SOMA) scale. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, with all patients who had assessments included. Long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN48243537. FINDINGS: 47 patients were assigned to each treatment arm. Median follow-up was 44·0 months (IQR 30·0-59·7). Six patients from each group died before 12 months and seven patients from the conventional radiotherapy and two from the IMRT group were not assessed at 12 months. At 12 months xerostomia side-effects were reported in 73 of 82 alive patients; grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the conventional radiotherapy group (25 [74%; 95% CI 56-87] of 34 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 15 [38%; 23-55] of 39 given IMRT, p=0·0027). The only recorded acute adverse event of grade 2 or worse that differed significantly between the treatment groups was fatigue, which was more prevalent in the IMRT group (18 [41%; 99% CI 23-61] of 44 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 35 [74%; 55-89] of 47 given IMRT, p=0·0015). At 24 months, grade 2 or worse xerostomia was significantly less common with IMRT than with conventional radiotherapy (20 [83%; 95% CI 63-95] of 24 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs nine [29%; 14-48] of 31 given IMRT; p<0·0001). At 12 and 24 months, significant benefits were seen in recovery of saliva secretion with IMRT compared with conventional radiotherapy, as were clinically significant improvements in dry-mouth-specific and global quality of life scores. At 24 months, no significant differences were seen between randomised groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival. INTERPRETATION: Sparing the parotid glands with IMRT significantly reduces the incidence of xerostomia and leads to recovery of saliva secretion and improvements in associated quality of life, and thus strongly supports a role for IMRT in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (CRUK/03/005).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., Haes, J. C. J. M. D., et al. (1993) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 · Cited by 16,005
New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid Tumors
Therasse, P., Arbuck, S. G., Eisenhauer, E. A., Wanders, J., Kaplan, R. S., Rubinstein, L., Verweij, J., Van Glabbeke, M., van Oosterom, A. T., Christian, M. C., et al. (2000) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/92.3.205 · Cited by 15,660
Cited by
Clinical translation of FLASH radiotherapy: Why and how?
Bourhis, J., Montay-Gruel, P., Gonçalves Jorge, P., Bailat, C., Petit, B., Ollivier, J., Jeanneret-Sozzi, W., Ozsahin, M., Bochud, F., Moeckli, R., et al. (2019) · Radiotherapy and Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2019.04.008 · Cited by 474
Past, present, and future of radiotherapy for the benefit of patients
Thariat, J., Hannoun-Levi, J.-M., Sun Myint, A., Vuong, T., & Gérard, J.-P. (2013) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.203 · Cited by 455
Peterson, D. E., Boers-Doets, C. B., Bensadoun, R. J., & Herrstedt, J. (2015) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv202 · Cited by 299
Exploiting biological and physical determinants of radiotherapy toxicity to individualize treatment
Scaife, J. E., Barnett, G. C., Noble, D. J., Jena, R., Thomas, S. J., West, C. M. L., & Burnet, N. G. (2015) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.20150172 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Nutting, C. M., Morden, J. P., Harrington, K. J., Urbano, T. G., Bhide, S. A., Clark, C., Miles, E. A., Miah, A. B., Newbold, K., Tanay, M., Adab, F., Jefferies, S. J., Scrase, C., Yap, B. K., A'Hern, R. P., Sydenham, M. A., Emson, M., & Hall, E.
- Venue
- The Lancet Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-02
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 127-136
- ISSN
- 1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2140110477
- Cited by
- 1,706
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 92.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70290-4
- The paper
- Nutting, C. M., Morden, J. P., Harrington, K. J., Urbano, T. G., Bhide, S. A., Clark, C., Miles, E. A., Miah, A. B., Newbold, K., Tanay, M., Adab, F., Jefferies, S. J., Scrase, C., Yap, B. K., A'Hern, R. P., Sydenham, M. A., Emson, M., & Hall, E. (2011). Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70290-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.