Continued Citation of Retracted Radiation Oncology Literature-Do We Have a Problem?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the number and explore the nature of citations of retracted articles in the radiation oncology literature occurring after publication of the retraction note. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A list of previously identified retracted articles within the field of radiation oncology was updated in June 2017. The number of publications citing retracted articles was quantified using Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus. Studies citing retracted publications after publication of the retraction note were individually assessed to determine the nature of the reference. RESULTS: Forty-seven retracted articles were identified for this study. Thirty-seven studies (79%) received 1017 citations before retraction, and 34 articles (72%) received 407 English and 169 foreign-language citations afterward. The average number of citations dropped from 22 to 11 after publication of the retraction note (95% confidence interval, 0.3-21.0, P = .043). Most postretraction citations occurred during the second year after the article's retraction, originated from North America and Asia (N = 124 each, 31%) and Europe (N = 122, 30%), and featured in original articles (N = 254, 62%) and reviews (N = 73, 18%). Of the 358 individually evaluable citing studies, 92% referenced the retracted article as legitimate work. Three guidelines and 15 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were also identified that cited retracted articles as valid work. CONCLUSIONS: Postretraction citations are an avoidable phenomenon. The results of the study emphasize the need for investigators to adhere to good research practices to mitigate the influence and propagation of flawed and unethical research. Journal editors, peer reviewers, and the broader radiation oncology readership should remain diligent in ensuring that citations of retracted work are identified and removed before, during, and possibly even after publication.

Surveying Retracted Studies and Notices Within the Field of Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize retracted studies within the field of radiation oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Computerized searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2017 looking for retracted studies using the terms "retraction note," "retracted note," "withdrawn" and "radiotherapy," and "radiation oncology." Additional studies were identified by hand-searching 10 discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers and then extracted author demographics, journal characteristics, and retraction-specific variables. RESULTS: Of the 58 studies identified, the most common reasons for retraction were misconduct (43%), methodological error (21%), authorship issues (5%), unknown causes (5%), and journal (administrative) errors (3%). A total of 13 systematic reviews or protocols (22%) were withdrawn from the Cochrane Library for being out-of-date or redundant. All but one retracted study and retraction notice were available in portable document format. Of the 57 retrieved papers, 79% were identified as retracted via in-text notations or watermarks. Overall median time to retraction was 44 months (interquartile range, 11-98 months). However, 42 studies (72%) were still cited after retraction notices were published. CONCLUSIONS: A retracted study within the field of radiation oncology remains a relatively uncommon event. Although promising, our data suggest that the majority of these retracted articles continue to be cited as valid research. As such, there is still a need for clinicians to remain vigilant with their academic rigor and good clinical research practices. There is an urgent need for publication houses to foster universal publishing standards along with discipline-specific retraction guidelines.

Evaluation of the preimplantation worksheet in determining Calypso eligibility for men prescribed postprostatectomy radiotherapy with electromagnetic transponder guidance.

This study aimed to assess the design and performance of the preimplant suitability worksheet in determining Calypso eligibility for prostate cancer patients prescribed postprostatectomy radiotherapy with electromagnetic transponder guidance. The medical records and radiotherapy planning datasets of 75 patients prospectively recruited between June 2015 and September 2016 to a Phase 2 trial evaluating electromagnetic transponder-guided postprostatectomy radiotherapy were retrospectively examined. Correlation and differences between computed tomography (CT)-defined greater trochanter and prostatic fossa landmarks were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic curves were also generated to assess the expected and observed accuracy of the worksheet in determining Calypso eligibility. Strong correlation was demonstrated between anterior surface to planning CT-defined greater trochanter and prostate bed center distances (r = 0.95, p <0.001), with a mean difference between measurements of 1.1 cm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9 to 1.3). A similar correlation coefficient was found for surface to greater trochanter location and posterior beacon location (r = 0.92, p <0.001) but with a reduced mean difference of 0.4 cm (95% CI: 0.1 to 0.6). Performance of the worksheet as assessed by planning CT data demonstrated excellent accuracy as a test to determine eligibility (area under the curve: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.00); however, this was not replicated using the same data captured clinically (area under the curve 0.83; 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.98). Although the greater trochanter is a good surrogate for the prostate bed center, it is better associated with the posterior beacon location. As a result, the worksheet will underestimate the truly eligible population if performed accurately and according to manufacturer guidelines. Theoretically, the worksheet could be improved if a cut off of 20 cm is used and the greater trochanter is accurately identified; however, the latter appears to be difficult to achieve in practice.

Impact of tumour bed boost integration on acute and late toxicity in patients with breast cancer: A systematic review.

The purpose of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence from studies investigating the integration of tumour bed boosts into whole breast irradiation for patients with Stage 0-III breast cancer, with a focus on its impact on acute and late toxicities. A comprehensive systematic electronic search through the Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed databases from January 2000 to January 2015 was conducted. Studies were considered eligible if they investigated the efficacy of hypo- or normofractionated whole breast irradiation with the inclusion of a daily concurrent boost. The primary outcomes of interest were the degree of observed acute and late toxicity following radiotherapy treatment. Methodological quality assessment was performed on all included studies using either the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or a previously published investigator-derived quality instrument. The search identified 35 articles, of which 17 satisfied our eligibility criteria. Thirteen and eleven studies reported on acute and late toxicities respectively. Grade 3 acute skin toxicity ranged from 1 to 7% whilst moderate to severe fibrosis and telangiectasia were both limited to 9%. Reported toxicity profiles were comparable to historical data at similar time-points. Studies investigating the delivery of concurrent boosts with whole breast radiotherapy courses report safe short to medium-term toxicity profiles and cosmesis rates. Whilst the quality of evidence and length of follow-up supporting these findings is low, sufficient evidence has been generated to consider concurrent boost techniques as an alternative to conventional sequential techniques.