Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29986113›Full record

ArticleJournal of radiation research2018

National survey of intracavitary brachytherapy for intact uterine cervical cancer in Japan.

Takafumi Toita, Tatsuya Ohno, Hitoshi Ikushima, Tetsuo Nishimura, Takashi Uno, Kazuhiko Ogawa, Hiroshi Onishi, Takushi Dokiya, Jun Itami, Working Group of the Japanese Group of Brachytherapy/Japan Society for Radiation Oncology (JGB/JASTRO)

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of radiation research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Patterns of care for brachytherapy in Japan.Journal of radiation research · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Global challenges of radiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Takafumi ToitaRadiation Therapy Center, Okinawa Chubu Hospital, 281 Miyazato, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan.
Tatsuya OhnoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gumma University Graduate School of Medicine.
Hitoshi IkushimaDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Tokushima University Graduate School.
Tetsuo NishimuraDivision of Radiation Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center.
Takashi UnoDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University.
Kazuhiko OgawaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University.
Hiroshi OnishiDepartment of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Yamanashi.
Takushi DokiyaDepartment of Radiology, Kyoundo Hospital.
Jun ItamiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital.
Working Group of the Japanese Group of Brachytherapy/Japan Society for Radiation Oncology (JGB/JASTRO)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To review the current status of, and labor expended for (in terms of time required), intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) in definitive radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer patients, two national surveys were performed. The first survey was conducted between July and August 2016 and consisted of a questionnaire of 12 items regarding ICBT procedures for cervical cancer, which was sent to 173 centers installed with high-dose-rate remote after-loading brachytherapy systems. Between November and December 2016, another survey was performed in 79 centers to evaluate labor required for ICBT procedures in terms of time spent and number of staff involved. In the first survey, the response rate was 77% of the 173 centers. ICBT was performed for cervical cancer in 118 (89%) centers. Imaging modalities used after applicator insertion were X-ray alone in 46 (40%), computed tomography in 69 (60%) and magnetic resonance imaging in 5 (4%) centers. Three-dimensional (3D) planning was performed in 55 centers (48%). Fifty-five (70%) centers responded to the second survey regarding ICBT-mandated labor. The median cumulative duration of the entire ICBT procedure was 330 min (the sum of the times spent by each staff member) and was longer in the 3D image-guided brachytherapy (3D-IGBT) (405 min) than in the X-ray group (230 min). This trend was significant for the specific processes of image acquisition and treatment planning, especially for radiation oncologists. In definitive radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer patients, 3D-IGBT use has been gradually spreading in Japan. The present survey revealed that ICBT, especially 3D-IGBT, requires substantial labor and time from staff.

Indexed as

BrachytherapySurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansJapanMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedTomography, X-Ray ComputedUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29986113
PMCPMC6054170

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.