ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2013
Prostate cancer boost using high-dose-rate brachytherapy: early toxicity analysis of 3 different fractionation schemes.
Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for elderly patients with intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer: 5-year clinical outcome of the PROSTAGE cohort.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Toxicity and clinical outcomes of single-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy combined with external beam radiotherapy for high-/very high-risk prostate cancer: A dosimetric analysis of toxicity.Japanese journal of radiology · 2020Article
- High-dose-rate brachytherapy delivered in two fractions as monotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2015Article
- High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for prostate cancer: technique, rationale and perspective.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyse early toxicity of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) boost for prostate cancer using 3 fractionation schemes. MATERIAL AND
methodsFrom February 2009 to May 2012, after the first course of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT 46 Gy/23 f), 124 patients underwent HDRB boost for low (7%), intermediate (19%), and high-risk (73%) prostate cancers. From February to December 2009, Group 1 (G1) = 18 Gy/3 f/2 d (24%); from January 2010 to April 2011, Group 2 (G2) = 18 Gy/2 f/2 d (42%), and from May to September 2011, Group 3 (G3) = 14 Gy/1 f/1 d (34%). Planning and CT-scan was performed before each fraction. Dose constraints for G1/G2 were V100 rectum = 0 and V125 urethra = 0, while for G3 V90 rectum = 0 and V115 urethra = 0. Genito-urinary (GU) and Gastro-intestinal (GI) acute toxicities were assessed at 1 month (for the 3 fractionation schemes) and 6 months (for 18 Gy/3 f and 18 Gy/2 f) after the boost (CTCv3.0).
resultsMedian follow-up was 25 months (8-46.9), median age was 71 years (50-82), and median CTV was 31 cc (16-71). The grades of acute GI and GU toxicities at 1 and 6 months after HDRB were mainly Grade 1 with few Grade 2 (GU: 5% at 1 month; GI: 1% at 6 months). One patient developed G4 sepsis toxicity 2 days after HDRB and recovered without after-effects. No significant differences were observed at 1 and 6 months after the HDRB between treatment groups.
conclusionsThe right fractionation remains under discussion, but prostate cancer HDRB boost using a single fraction (providing similar results in terms of acute toxicity) is more comfortable for the patient, and less time consuming for the medical staff.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.