ArticleHeliyon2020
Analysis of outcomes after non-contour-based dose painting of dominant intra-epithelial lesion in intra-operative low-dose rate brachytherapy.
Article in Heliyon, 2020. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A machine-learning approach based on 409 treatments to predict optimal number of iodine-125 seeds in low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the outcomes of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer (IR-PCa) treated with low-dose rate I-125 seed brachytherapy (LDR-BT) and targeted dose painting of a histologic dominant intra-epithelial lesion (DIL) to those without a DIL.
methods455 patients with IR-PCa were treated at a single center with intra-operatively planned LDR-BT, each following the same in-house dose constraints. Patients with a DIL on pathology had hot spots localized to that region but no specific contouring during the procedure.
results396 (87%) patients had a DIL. Baseline tumor characteristics and overall prostate dosimetry were similar between patients with and without DIL except the median number of biopsy cores taken: 10 (10-12) vs 12 (10-12) (p = 0.002).19 (5%) and 18 (5%) of patients with and 1 (2%) and 0 (0%) of those without DIL experienced CTCAE grade 2 and 3 toxicity respectively. Overall, toxicity grade did not significantly correlate with presence of DIL (p = 0.10).Estimated 7-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) was 84% (95% confidence interval: 79-89) and 70% (54-89) in patients with and without a DIL (log-rank p = 0.315). In DIL patients, cox regression revealed location of DIL ("Base" vs "Apex" HR: 1.03; 1.00-1.06; p = 0.03) and older age (70 vs 60 HR: 1.62; 1.06-2.49; p = 0.03) was associated with poor FFBF.
conclusionsTargeting DIL through dose painting during intraoperatively planned LDR-BT provided no statistically significant change in FFBF. Patients with DILs in the prostate base had slightly lower FFBF despite DIL boost.
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.