Evidence Hub

Radiation toxicity in patients with collagen vascular disease: A meta-analysis of case-control studies

P. Shaikh, Sarah A. Singh, F. Alite, J. Vargo, B. Emami, Meng-Jia Wu, G. Jacobson, V. Bakalov et al.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2021

4,028 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Several retrospective series have reported that patients with collagen vascular disease (CVD) are at increased risk of radiation (RT) toxicity. However, the evidence is mixed, and many series lack control groups. We performed a meta-analysis including only case-cohort or randomized studies examining the risk of RT toxicity for patients with CVD compared to controls.

METHODS

MOOSE guidelines were used to perform a comprehensive search identifying case-control or randomized studies reporting RT toxicity outcomes for patients with CVD versus controls. Data were synthesized from studies reporting grade 2 to 3 or more (G2/3+) acute and late RT toxicities. Results were analyzed on the random-effects (RE) model for between-study heterogeneity, otherwise the fixed-effects model (FE) was used. Hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) were the effect-size estimators, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included with 4,028 patients (CVD: 406, control: 3622). Patients with CVD had higher rates of acute G2/3+ toxicity (26.2% vs. 16.5%, OR 2.01, p<0.001) and late G2/3+ toxicity (18.4% vs 10.1%, OR 2.37, p<0.001). Higher rates of late G2/3+ toxicity were observed for CVD patients with systemic lupus erythematous (21% vs. 9.7%, OR 2.55, p=0.03), systemic scleroderma (31.8% vs. 9.7%, OR 3.85, p=0.03), rheumatoid arthritis (11.7% vs. 8.4%, OR=2.56; p=0.008), and those irradiated to the pelvis/abdomen (32.2% vs 11.9%, OR 3.29, p=0.001), breast (14.7% vs 4.4%, OR 3.51, p=0.003),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,028 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free