ArticleCancers2020
Evaluation of Uterine Brachytherapy as Primary Treatment Option for Elderly Patients with Medically Inoperable Endometrial Cancer-A Single-Center Experience and Review of the Literature.
Article in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Brachytherapy in Inoperable Endometrial Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical outcomes analysis of image-guided brachytherapy as definitive treatment for inoperable endometrial cancer.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to gain more evidence regarding the feasibility, toxicity, and oncological outcome of primary brachytherapy in patients with medically inoperable endometrial cancer. Thirteen patients receiving primary brachytherapy ± external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for endometrial cancer due to medical inoperability were identified. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and local failure-free survival (LFFS). Univariate outcome analyses were performed using the log-rank test. Peri-interventional complications, acute and chronic toxicities were evaluated. Additionally, we performed a Pubmed search and review of the literature of the last 10 years. Mean age at time of diagnosis was 73.9 years (60.4-87.1 years). Eleven patients were staged FIGO IA/B and one patient each with FIGO IIIA and IIIC. Kaplan-Meier-estimated 2-/5-year LFFS were 76.2%/56.4%, respectively. High grading correlated with a worse LFFS (
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.