ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2021
High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: long-term experience of Swedish single-center.
Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-dose-rate monotherapy for localised prostate Cancer: A two-implant approach with median 13 years follow-up.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Detailed functional results after bladder-preserving surgery and high-dose-rate brachytherapy in pediatric bladder/prostate rhabdomyosarcoma.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Review
- The Impact of Different Timing Schedules on Prostate HDR-Mono-Brachytherapy. A TCP Modeling Investigation.Cancers · 2021Article
- High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy as Monotherapy for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer. Oncological Outcomes After a Median 15-Year Follow-Up.Frontiers in oncology · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUntil now, most long-term results for brachytherapy only has been published for low-dose-rate (LDR) seeds. Due to radiobiology reasons, high-dose-rate (HDR) mono-brachytherapy is of growing interest. The aim of the study was to report long-term biochemical control rate and toxicities with HDR monotherapy. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis was a retrospective single-institution experience, including 229 men, clinically staged T1c-T2b, Gleason 3 + 3 (prostate specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 15), or Gleason 3 + 4 (PSA ≤ 10), consecutively treated between 2004 and 2012 with HDR brachytherapy alone, using three different fractionation schedules of 92-95 Gy (EQD(2), α/β = 3). Group 4F (
resultsFor 4F, 3F, and 2F study groups, median follow-up was 10.2, 7.1, and 6.1 years, respectively, and biochemical failure rate was 10.5%, 4.7%, and 14.6%, respectively. Early and late side effects were followed with common terminology criteria version 2.0 and patient-reported questionnaires. There were a temporary acute urethral toxicity increase, 1-2 grades over baseline lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), which usually recovered. About 1/3 of the patients had a remaining one grade over baseline LUTS. Severe grade 3-4 toxicity were only found in 3.5% of patients. No rectal toxicity was observed. Erectile dysfunction (ED) was depending on age and erectile function before treatment. In patients without ED before the treatment, we found a complete ED in 21% of men at the last follow-up.
conclusionsIn the present study, HDR mono-brachytherapy was found to be an effective treatment, with mild long-term side effects difficult to differentiate from aging effects. There were no significant differences in PSA regression, PSA failure rate, and toxicity between the different fraction schedules.
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.