Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28848362›Full record

ReviewCancer management and research2017

Vaginal cuff brachytherapy in endometrial cancer - a technically easy treatment?

Sebastià Sabater, Ignacio Andres, Veronica Lopez-Honrubia, Roberto Berenguer, Marimar Sevillano, Esther Jimenez-Jimenez, Angeles Rovirosa, Meritxell Arenas

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer management and research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Is one brachytherapy fraction of 7 Gy similar to more fractions after external beam irradiation in postoperative endometrial carcinoma?Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sebastià SabaterDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete, Albacete.
Ignacio AndresDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete, Albacete.
Veronica Lopez-HonrubiaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete, Albacete.
Roberto BerenguerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete, Albacete.
Marimar SevillanoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete, Albacete.
Esther Jimenez-JimenezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca.
Angeles RovirosaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona.
Meritxell ArenasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitari Sant Joan, Reus, Spain.
Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete · ESHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESHospital Universitario Son Espases · ESHospital Universitari Sant Joan de Reus · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common gynecological cancers among women in the developed countries. Vaginal cuff is the main location of relapses after a curative surgical procedure and postoperative radiation therapy have proven to diminish it. Nevertheless, these results have not translated into better survival results. The preeminent place of vaginal cuff brachytherapy (VCB) in the postoperative treatment of high- to intermediate-risk EC was given by the PORTEC-2 trial, which demonstrated a similar reduction in relapses with VCB than with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), but VCB induced less late toxicity. As a result of this trial, the use of VCB has increased in clinical practice at the expense of EBRT. A majority of the clinical reviews of VCB usually address the risk categories and patient selection but pay little attention to technical aspects of the VCB procedure. Our review aimed to address both aspects. First of all, we described the risk groups, which guide patient selection for VCB in clinical practice. Then, we depicted several technical aspects that might influence dose deposition and toxicity. Bladder distension and rectal distension as well as applicator position or patient position are some of those variables that we reviewed.

Indexed as

bladderendometrial cancerrectumtechniquevaginal cuff brachytherapy

Identifiers

PMID28848362
PMCPMC5557121
OpenAlexW2745203376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.