ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2016
Clinical application of computed tomography-guided (125)I seed interstitial implantation for head and neck cancer patients with unmanageable cervical lymph node metastases.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound-guided implantation of radioactiveBMC cancer · 2021Article
- A systematic review of treating recurrent head and neck cancer: a reintroduction of brachytherapy with or without surgery.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2018Review
- CT-guidedJournal of Cancer · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess clinical application of computed tomography (CT)-guided (125)I seed implantation for patients who cannot endure or unwillingly receive repeated surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy for unmanageable cervical lymph node metastases in head and neck cancer (HNC).
methodsThirty-one consecutive patients received CT-guided (125)I seed implantation between February 2010 and December 2013. To evaluate the clinical efficiency, karnofsky performance score (KPS), numeric rating scale (NRS), and tumor volume at 3-, and 6-month post-implantation were compared with pre-implantation, along with local control rate (LCR), overall survival rate (OSR), and complications at 3, 6 months, 1, and 2 years.
resultsThe tumor volume was obviously decreased at 3-, and 6-month post-implantation (21.23 ± 8.83 versus 9.19 ± 7.52 cm(2); 21.23 ± 8.83 versus 6.42 ± 9.79 cm(2); P < 0.05) compared with pre-implantation. The NRS was statistically reduced (3.06 ± 1.06 versus 7.77 ± 0.92; 2.39 ± 1.15 versus 7.77 ± 0.92; P < 0.05), while KPS was significantly improved (83.18 ± 5.97 versus 73.60 ± 7.90; 82.86 ± 5.43 versus 73.60 ± 7.90; P < 0.05) postoperatively at 3 and 6 months, respectively. The LCR at 3, 6 months, 1, and 2 years was 96.30, 83.87, 64.51, and 45.16%, respectively. The OSR was 100, 100, 67.74, and 45.16%, respectively. Three cases experienced grade I and two had grade II acute radiation toxicity.
conclusionsCT-guided seed implantation may be feasible and safe for HNC patients whose neck nodes are not manageable by routine strategies with fewer complications, higher LCR, and significant pain relief.
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.