ArticleThe British journal of radiology2015
Dosimetric planning study for the prevention of anal complications after post-operative whole pelvic radiotherapy in cervical cancer patients with hemorrhoids.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- HYPHYCA: a prospective study in 613 patients conducting a comprehensive analysis for predictive factors of physiologicalEJNMMI research · 2020Article
- Aggravation of Hemorrhoids in Patients With Cervical Cancer Undergoing Radiotherapy: A Nationwide Population-based Study.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRadiation-induced anal toxicity can be induced by low radiation doses in patients with haemorrhoids. The object of this study was to determine the dosimetric benefits of different whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) techniques in terms of dose delivered to the anal canal in post-operative patients with cervical cancer.
methodsThe planning CT images of 10 patients with cervical cancer undergoing postoperative radiotherapy were used for comparison of three different plans. All patients had been treated using the conventional box technique WPRT (CV-WPRT), and we tried low-margin-modified WPRT (LM-WPRT), three-dimensional conformal techniques WPRT (CF-WPRT) and intensity-modulated WPRT (IM-WPRT) planning for dosimetric comparison of the anal canal, retrospectively.
resultsMean anal canal doses of the IM-WPRT were significantly lower (p < 0.05) than those of CV-WPRT, LM-WPRT and CF-WPRT, and V10, V20, V30 and V40 to the anal canal were also significantly lower for IM-WPRT (p < 0.05). The proportion of planning target volumes (PTVs) that received ≥98% of the prescribed dose for all plans was >99%, and the proportion that received ≥108% of the prescribed dose for IM-WPRT was <2%. Volumes of bladders and rectums that received ≥30 or ≥40 Gy were significantly lower for IM-WPRT than for three of the four-field WPRT plans (p = 0.000).
conclusionIM-WPRT can significantly reduce radiation dose delivered to the anal canal and does not compromise PTV coverage. In patients with haemorrhoids, IM-WPRT may be of value for the prevention of anal complications. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Although tolerance of the anal canal tends to be ignored in patients undergoing post-operative WPRT, patients with haemorrhoids may suffer complications at low radiation doses. The present study shows IM-WPRT can be meaningful in these patients.
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.