Outcomes and level of evidence in radiation therapy research and different categories of radiotherapy innovations: an ESTRO-VBRO bibliometrics analysis of the literature

dc.contributor.author
Vandemaele, Miet
dc.contributor.author
Lewison, Grant
dc.contributor.author
Martinussen, Hanneke
dc.contributor.author
Borràs Andrés, Josep Maria
dc.contributor.author
Leech, Michelle
dc.contributor.author
Aznar, Marianne
dc.contributor.author
Blanchard, Pierre
dc.contributor.author
Lievens, Yolande
dc.contributor.author
Aggarwal, Ajay
dc.date.issued
2025-11-07T18:55:47Z
dc.date.issued
2025-11-07T18:55:47Z
dc.date.issued
2025-10-04
dc.date.issued
2025-11-07T18:55:47Z
dc.identifier
0167-8140
dc.identifier
https://hdl.handle.net/2445/224216
dc.identifier
761068
dc.identifier
41052600
dc.description.abstract
Aim: The ESTRO-Value-Based Radiation Oncology project aims to enhance patient access to high-value radiotherapy innovations, by identifying interventions delivering meaningful benefit. To understand the role of the quality of evidence in implementation decisions, this paper analyses the study designs and endpoints used to appraise selected types of radiotherapy innovations in the literature. Methods: This review used a quantitative bibliometric approach to analyse a representative set of 23 radiotherapy innovations, identified within the radiation therapy research published between 2012 and 2022 in the Web of Science database. Abstracts were searched manually to extract information about study designs and endpoints. Interventions were allocated into one of four defined radiotherapy categories, based on a decision algorithm developed in a parallel project. Results: 3,721 abstracts were identified and categorised using the decision algorithm into four categories: Drug-centred, Radiation-centred, Radiation-enabling or Operational radiotherapy interventions. The study designs were highly variable across these categories: in Drug-centred innovations, 20.3% were clinical trials compared to 6.8% for Radiation-centred. The predominant design across all categories was Prospective observational studies, ranging from 53.9% in Radiation-enabling to 23.0% in Drug-centred innovations. Regarding endpoints, the main focus for Drug-centred innovations was on Clinical endpoints and Overall survival. For Radiation-centred and Radiation-enabling innovations, Toxicity endpoints were more frequently reported. Conclusion: This analysis demonstrates the differences in radiotherapy research output for various categories of radiotherapy interventions. This supports the development of a tailored appraisal strategy for each category, based on the required level of evidence and meaningful endpoints to support reimbursement and clinical implementation.
dc.format
7 p.
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.language
eng
dc.publisher
Elsevier B.V.
dc.relation
Reproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111165
dc.relation
Radiotherapy and Oncology, 2025, vol. 213
dc.relation
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111165
dc.rights
cc-by-nc-nd (c) Vandemaele, Miet et al., 2025
dc.rights
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.source
Articles publicats en revistes (Ciències Clíniques)
dc.subject
Radioteràpia
dc.subject
Bibliometria
dc.subject
Medicina basada en l'evidència
dc.subject
Radiotherapy
dc.subject
Bibliometrics
dc.subject
Evidence-based medicine
dc.title
Outcomes and level of evidence in radiation therapy research and different categories of radiotherapy innovations: an ESTRO-VBRO bibliometrics analysis of the literature
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.