ArticleDiagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy2016
Long-Term Endoscopic Follow-Up of Patients with Chronic Radiation Proctopathy after Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer.
Article in Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. Chronic radiation proctopathy (CRP) is late toxicity and associated with morbidity. Aim. To investigate the predictors of prognosis in patients with CRP after brachytherapy (BT). Methods. One hundred four patients with prostate cancer were treated with BT or BT followed by external-beam radiotherapy (BT + EBRT). We retrospectively investigated the 5-year incidence of rectal bleeding and endoscopic findings of CRP using the Vienna Rectoscopy Score (VRS). Twenty patients with VRS ≥ 1 were divided into the improved VRS group without treatment, unchanged VRS group, and treated group. The parameters associated with alteration of VRS were analyzed. Results. The incidence of rectal bleeding was 24%. The risk of rectal bleeding was higher in patients treated with BT + EBRT compared to those treated with BT (p < 0.0001). The incidence of superficial microulceration was higher in the improved VRS group than in the unchanged VRS group (p < 0.05). The incidence of multiple confluent telangiectasia or superficial ulcers > 1 cm(2) was higher in the treated group than in both the improved and unchanged VRS groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions. Patients treated with BT + EBRT have a high risk of CRP. Endoscopic findings were useful for prognostic prediction of CRP.
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.