ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2019
Institutional patient accrual volume and the treatment quality of I‑125 prostate seed implantation in a Japanese nationwide prospective cohort study.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2019. 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.
- Comparison of EBRT and I-125 seed brachytherapy concerning outcome in intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2021Article
- Treatment of low-risk prostate cancer: a retrospective study with 477 patients comparing external beam radiotherapy and I-125 seeds brachytherapy in terms of biochemical control and late side effects.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2021Article
- Current status of prostate brachytherapy in Japan.Japanese journal of radiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIt is unclear whether experience at high-volume institute improves the treatment quality of prostate seed implantation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of institutional experience on postimplant dosimetric parameters in a nationwide prospective cohort study.
methodsFrom July 2005 to June 2007, 2354 patients were registered in the Japanese Prostate Cancer Outcome Study of Permanent I‑125 Seed Implantation (J-POPS), and 1126 patients treated with seed implantation alone were evaluated. As a surrogate for institutional experience, we classified the J‑POPS institutions as high-volume (patient accrual volume was ≥120 patients per institution) or low-volume institutions (patient accrual volume was <120 patients per institution). To compare treatment quality between institutions, we evaluated the postimplant dosimetric parameters including D90, V100/150 (prostatic dose parameters), UD5/90, U200 (urethral dose parameters), and rectum R100/150 (rectal dose parameters).
resultsIn the 5 high-volume institutions (n = 601 patients), most of the patients were treated with >144 Gy of D90, whereas in the 20 low-volume institutions (n = 525) some of the patients were treated with <144 Gy. The V100 of most of the high-volume institution patients were >90%, whereas in the low-volume institutions a considerable percentage of patients showed lower V100. Although there was no correlation between D90 and rectal dose parameters, UD90 had a moderate positive correlation with D90 in both the high- and low-volume institutions. U200 varied more widely in the low-volume institutions.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that the institutional patient accrual volume is associated with the treatment quality of I‑125 prostate seed implantation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30519730What 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.