ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Risk for second bladder and rectal malignancies from cervical cancer irradiation.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A study on the temporal patterns, anatomical distribution, and influencing factors of radiation therapy-associated second primary cancers in gynecological malignancies.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Survival and risk factors for metastatic colorectal cancer patients with a history of prior malignancy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Nanomaterial-Enhanced Immunotherapy: Advancing T-Cell-Based Treatments for Bladder Cancer.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Review
- Advanced Bladder Cancer: Changing the Treatment Landscape.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Assessment of Radiation-Induced Bladder and Bowel Cancer Risks after Conventionally and Hypo-Fractionated Radiotherapy for the Preoperative Management of Rectal Carcinoma.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to estimate the risk of developing second malignancies to partially in-field organs from volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) of cervical cancer and to compare the above risks with those from the conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Seventeen consecutive patients with uterine cervix carcinoma were selected. VMAT and 3D-CRT plans were generated with 6 and 10 MV photons, respectively. The prescribed tumor dose was 45 Gy given in 25 fractions. Differential dose-volume histogram data from the treatment plans were obtained for the partially in-field organs such as bladder and rectum. These data were used to estimate the patient-specific lifetime attributable risk (LAR) for bladder and rectal cancer induction with a non-linear model based on a mixture of plateau and bell-shaped dose-response relationships. The estimated risks per 10000 people were compared with the baseline risks for unexposed population. The patient-specific rectal cancer risk estimates from VMAT were significantly lower than those from 3D-CRT (P = 0.0144). The LARs for developing bladder malignancies from VMAT were significantly high compared to those from conventional irradiation (P = 0.0003). The mean difference between the patient-specific LARs for radiation-induced bladder and rectal malignancies as derived from 3D-CRT and VMAT plans was 6.6% and 2.0%, respectively. The average LAR for developing bladder and rectal malignant diseases due to VMAT was 9.2 × 10
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.