The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Radiotherapy Protocol Deviations and Clinical Outcomes: A Meta-analysis of Cooperative Group Clinical Trials
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Noncompliance with radiotherapy (RT) protocol guidelines has been linked to inferior clinical outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of cooperative group trials to examine the association between RT quality assurance (QA) deviations and disease control and overall survival (OS). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for multi-institutional trials that reported clinical outcomes in relation to RT QA results. Hazard ratios (HRs) describing the association between RT protocol noncompliance and patient outcomes were extracted directly from the original studies or calculated from survival curves. Inverse variance meta-analyses were performed to assess the association between RT QA deviations and OS. A second meta-analysis tested the association between RT QA deviations and secondary outcomes, including local or locoregional control, event-free survival, and relapse. Random-effects models were used in cases of statistically significant (P < .10) effect heterogeneity. The Egger test was used to detect publication bias. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Eight studies (four pediatric, four adult) met all inclusion criteria and were incorporated into this analysis. The frequency of RT QA deviations ranged from 8% to 71% (median = 32%). In a random-effects model, RT deviations were associated with a statistically significant decrease in OS (HR of death = 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28 to 2.35; P < .001). A similar effect was seen for secondary outcomes (HR of treatment failure = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.78; P = .009). No evidence of publication bias was detected. CONCLUSION: In clinical trials, RT protocol deviations are associated with increased risks of treatment failure and overall mortality.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Parmar, M. K. B., Torri, V., & Stewart, L. (1998) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::aid-sim110>3.0.co;2-8 · Cited by 4,802
Peters, L. J., O'Sullivan, B., Giralt, J., Fitzgerald, T. J., Trotti, A., Bernier, J., Bourhis, J., Yuen, K., Fisher, R., & Rischin, D. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2009.27.4498 · Cited by 812
Abrams, R. A., Winter, K. A., Regine, W. F., Safran, H., Hoffman, J. P., Lustig, R., Konski, A. A., Benson, A. B., Macdonald, J. S., Rich, T. A., et al. (2012) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.11.039 · Cited by 278
A multidisciplinary study investigating radiotherapy in Ewing’s sarcoma: end results of POG #8346
Donaldson, S. S., Torrey, M., Link, M. P., Glicksman, A., Gilula, L., Laurie, F., Manning, J., Neff, J., Reinus, W., Thompson, E., et al. (1998) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/s0360-3016(98)00191-6 · Cited by 205
Weber, D. C., Poortmans, P. M., Hurkmans, C., Aird, E. G. A., Gulybán, Á., & Fairchild, A. M. (2011) · Radiotherapy and Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2011.05.073 · Cited by 96
Cited by
2nd ESMO Consensus Conference in Lung Cancer: locally advanced stage III non-small-cell lung cancer
Eberhardt, W. E. E., De Ruysscher, D., Weder, W., Le Péchoux, C., De Leyn, P., Hoffmann, H., Westeel, V., Stahel, R., Felip, E., Peters, S., et al. (2015) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv187 · Cited by 401
Lin, D., Lapen, K., Sherer, M. V., Kantor, J., Zhang, Z., Boyce, L. M., Bosch, W., Korenstein, D., & Gillespie, E. F. (2020) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.04.011 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Ohri, N., Shen, X., Dicker, A. P., Doyle, L. A., Harrison, A. S., & Showalter, T. N.
- Venue
- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-03-06
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 387-393
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2164758846
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 2.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Radiotherapy Protocol Deviations and Clinical Outcomes: A Meta-analysis of Cooperative Group Clinical Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djt001
- The paper
- Ohri, N., Shen, X., Dicker, A. P., Doyle, L. A., Harrison, A. S., & Showalter, T. N. (2013). Radiotherapy Protocol Deviations and Clinical Outcomes: A Meta-analysis of Cooperative Group Clinical Trials. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt001
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.