ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2019
Inter-institutional comparison of treatment practice for cervical cancer with special emphasis on brachytherapy.
Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 2019. 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.
- Dosimetric comparison of intra-cavitary brachytherapy technique with free-hand (intra-cavitary + interstitial) technique in cervical cancer.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the cervical cancer treatment outcome and toxicities between two different institutions. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe analysed the clinical outcome of cervical cancer patients treated at two different centres from January 2015 to December 2016. Centre A treated 72 patients by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to a dose of 45 Gy in 25 fractions followed by intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) 6.5 Gy × 4 fractions and centre B treated 89 patients by EBRT to a dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions followed by ICBT 9 Gy × 2 fractions. The local control, distant metastases and treatment toxicities were compared.
resultsThe median follow-up in centre A was 12 months and in centre B was 18 months. The median overall treatment time in centre A was 52 days and in centre B was 61 days. The mean equieffective doses in 2 Gy (EQD
conclusionsA high dose rate brachytherapy fractionation schedule of 6.5 Gy × 4 fractions over 2 days for CTV
Indexed as
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.