PortalPublikationenSplit-course radiotherapy: where do we stand?

Split-course radiotherapy: where do we stand?

Standard

Split-course radiotherapy: where do we stand? / Dubben, H H; Krüll, Andreas; Beck-Bornholdt, Hans-Peter.

in: STRAHLENTHER ONKOL, Jahrgang 177, Nr. 5, 5, 01.05.2001, S. 227-239.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung

Harvard

Dubben, HH, Krüll, A & Beck-Bornholdt, H-P 2001, 'Split-course radiotherapy: where do we stand?', STRAHLENTHER ONKOL, Jg. 177, Nr. 5, 5, S. 227-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00002402

APA

Dubben, H. H., Krüll, A., & Beck-Bornholdt, H-P. (2001). Split-course radiotherapy: where do we stand? STRAHLENTHER ONKOL, 177(5), 227-239. [5]. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00002402

Vancouver

Dubben HH, Krüll A, Beck-Bornholdt H-P. Split-course radiotherapy: where do we stand? STRAHLENTHER ONKOL. 2001 Mai 1;177(5):227-239. 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00002402

Bibtex

@article{3d6df21d5fd0492baafea4d1d84b97c8,
title = "Split-course radiotherapy: where do we stand?",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Split-course radiotherapy is only rarely applied in curative radiotherapy and there might be a number of arguments to believe that continuous radiotherapy is superior to split-course treatment. In order to point out the evidence current treatment practice is based on, the available randomized trials and some prominent retrospective analyses on split-course radiotherapy were critically assessed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The analysis of the clinical results was based on published data only. Publications were searched in a Medline database. RESULTS: Assessment of 13 randomized trials, including the data of 2,112 patients, revealed no significant difference between continuous-course and split-course radiotherapy. Astonishingly, the outcome of 77 radiotherapy studies on split-course, most of which are retrospective, seems to depend on the year of publication, suggesting publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically relevant difference between continuous and split-course radiotherapy could be found. This, of course, does not proof that there are indeed no differences but the data do not allow to draw clear-cut conclusions in favor of or against split-course radiotherapy due to methodological shortcomings of the studies.",
keywords = "Dose Fractionation, Evidence-Based Medicine, Humans, MEDLINE, Neoplasms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome",
author = "Dubben, {H H} and Andreas Kr{\"u}ll and Hans-Peter Beck-Bornholdt",
year = "2001",
month = may,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/pl00002402",
language = "English",
volume = "177",
pages = "227--239",
journal = "STRAHLENTHER ONKOL",
issn = "0179-7158",
publisher = "Urban und Vogel",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Split-course radiotherapy: where do we stand?

AU - Dubben, H H

AU - Krüll, Andreas

AU - Beck-Bornholdt, Hans-Peter

PY - 2001/5/1

Y1 - 2001/5/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Split-course radiotherapy is only rarely applied in curative radiotherapy and there might be a number of arguments to believe that continuous radiotherapy is superior to split-course treatment. In order to point out the evidence current treatment practice is based on, the available randomized trials and some prominent retrospective analyses on split-course radiotherapy were critically assessed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The analysis of the clinical results was based on published data only. Publications were searched in a Medline database. RESULTS: Assessment of 13 randomized trials, including the data of 2,112 patients, revealed no significant difference between continuous-course and split-course radiotherapy. Astonishingly, the outcome of 77 radiotherapy studies on split-course, most of which are retrospective, seems to depend on the year of publication, suggesting publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically relevant difference between continuous and split-course radiotherapy could be found. This, of course, does not proof that there are indeed no differences but the data do not allow to draw clear-cut conclusions in favor of or against split-course radiotherapy due to methodological shortcomings of the studies.

AB - BACKGROUND: Split-course radiotherapy is only rarely applied in curative radiotherapy and there might be a number of arguments to believe that continuous radiotherapy is superior to split-course treatment. In order to point out the evidence current treatment practice is based on, the available randomized trials and some prominent retrospective analyses on split-course radiotherapy were critically assessed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The analysis of the clinical results was based on published data only. Publications were searched in a Medline database. RESULTS: Assessment of 13 randomized trials, including the data of 2,112 patients, revealed no significant difference between continuous-course and split-course radiotherapy. Astonishingly, the outcome of 77 radiotherapy studies on split-course, most of which are retrospective, seems to depend on the year of publication, suggesting publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically relevant difference between continuous and split-course radiotherapy could be found. This, of course, does not proof that there are indeed no differences but the data do not allow to draw clear-cut conclusions in favor of or against split-course radiotherapy due to methodological shortcomings of the studies.

KW - Dose Fractionation

KW - Evidence-Based Medicine

KW - Humans

KW - MEDLINE

KW - Neoplasms

KW - Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

KW - Treatment Outcome

U2 - 10.1007/pl00002402

DO - 10.1007/pl00002402

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 11398608

VL - 177

SP - 227

EP - 239

JO - STRAHLENTHER ONKOL

JF - STRAHLENTHER ONKOL

SN - 0179-7158

IS - 5

M1 - 5

ER -