Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29204164›Full record

ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2017

Comparison of dose volume parameters evaluated using three forward planning - optimization techniques in cervical cancer brachytherapy involving two applicators.

Bikramjit Chakrabarti, Somapriya Basu-Roy, Sanjay Kumar Kar, Sounik Das, Annesha Lahiri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Outcomes of patients with cervical cancer treated with low- or high-dose rate brachytherapy after concurrent chemoradiation.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Bikramjit ChakrabartiDepartment of Radiotherapy, Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research and Seth Sukhlal Kernani Memorial Hospital, Kolkata, India.
Somapriya Basu-RoyDepartment of Radiotherapy, Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research and Seth Sukhlal Kernani Memorial Hospital, Kolkata, India.
Sanjay Kumar KarDepartment of Radiotherapy, Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research and Seth Sukhlal Kernani Memorial Hospital, Kolkata, India.
Sounik DasDepartment of Radiotherapy, Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research and Seth Sukhlal Kernani Memorial Hospital, Kolkata, India.
Annesha LahiriDepartment of Radiotherapy, Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research and Seth Sukhlal Kernani Memorial Hospital, Kolkata, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study is intended to compare dose-volume parameters evaluated using different forward planning- optimization techniques, involving two applicator systems in intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer. It looks for the best applicator-optimization combination to fulfill recommended dose-volume objectives in different high-dose-rate (HDR) fractionation schedules. MATERIAL AND

methodsWe used tandem-ring and Fletcher-style tandem-ovoid applicator in same patients in two fractions of brachytherapy. Six plans were generated for each patient utilizing 3 forward optimization techniques for each applicator used: equal dwell weight/times ('no optimization'), 'manual dwell weight/times', and 'graphical'. Plans were normalized to left point A and dose of 8 Gy was prescribed. Dose volume and dose point parameters were compared.

resultsWithout graphical optimization, maximum width and thickness of volume enclosed by 100% isodose line, dose to 90%, and 100% of clinical target volume (CTV); minimum, maximum, median, and average dose to both rectum and bladder are significantly higher with Fletcher applicator. Even if it is done, dose to both points B, minimum dose to CTV, and treatment time; dose to 2 cc (D

conclusionsFletcher applicator generates higher dose to both CTV and organs at risk (2 cc volumes) after all optimization techniques. Dose restriction to rectum is possible using graphical optimization only during selected HDR fractionation schedules. Bladder always receives dose higher than recommended, and 2 cc sigmoid colon always gets permissible dose. Contrarily, graphical optimization with ring applicators fulfills all dose volume objectives in all HDR fractionations practiced.

Indexed as

carcinomacervical cancercervixdosimetryoptimization

Identifiers

PMID29204164
PMCPMC5705826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.