Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35092552›Full record

ArticleLa Radiologia medica2022

EROS 2.0 study: evaluation of two interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) schedules for endometrial cancer: a comparison of late vaginal toxicity rates.

Valentina Lancellotta, Gabriella Macchia, Nicola Dinapoli, Rosa Autorino, Maura Campitelli, Alessia Nardangeli, Alessandra Salvati, Bruno Fionda, Calogero Casà, Patrizia Cornacchione and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in La Radiologia medica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. D90 and DCancers · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Vaginal dilator use more than 9 months is a main prognostic factor for reducing G2‑late vaginal complications in 3D‑vaginal‑cuff brachytherapy (interventional radiotherapy)?Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Valentina LancellottaUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Gabriella MacchiaGemelli Molise Hospital, Radiation Oncology Unit, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 86100, Campobasso, Italy. macchiagabriella@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0529-201X
Nicola DinapoliUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Rosa AutorinoUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Maura CampitelliUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Alessia NardangeliUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Alessandra SalvatiUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Bruno FiondaUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Calogero CasàUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Patrizia CornacchioneUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Angeles RovirosaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Clinic i Universitari, Fonaments Clinics Department, University of Barcelona, 08036, Barcelona, Spain.
György KovácsUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00128, Roma, Italy.
Alessio Giuseppe MorgantiRadiotherapy Center, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria di Bologna, 40138, Bologna, Italy.
Maria Gabriella FerrandinaWoman, Child and Public Health Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli", IRCCS, Roma, Italy.
Maria Antonietta GambacortaUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Luca TagliaferriUOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITAzienda USL di Bologna · ITUniversitat de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the late toxicity rates after two different high dose rate (HDR) adjuvant intravaginal interventional radiotherapy (IRT-brachytherapy) dose schedules in stage I-II endometrial cancer.

methodsStage I-II patients with endometrial cancer treated with surgery (with or without lymphadenectomy) and adjuvant HDR-IRT between 2014 and 2020 were included in this analysis. Patients were treated with two schedules. In the first cohort (C1), 21 Gy were delivered in three weekly fractions (7 Gy) prescribed 0.5 cm from the applicator surface. In the second cohort (C2), 24 Gy were delivered in four weekly fractions (6 Gy). The clinical target volume was the upper third of the vagina for C1 and the upper 3 cm for C2. HDR-IRT technique and point prescription (5 mm depth from the applicator surface) were the same for all patients. Vaginal toxicity was scored according to the CTCAE 5.0 scale in terms of the presence versus absence of any toxicity grade. The correlation among toxicity and clinical covariates (age, lymphadenectomy, fractionation, stage) was tested by Pearson correlation test (univariate) and by logistic regression (multivariable).

results114 stage I and three stage II patients, median age 62 (range: 32-85) years, were included in this analysis. The mean follow-up was 56.3 months in C1 (40-76) and 20 months in C2 (8-42). Vaginal late toxicity was recorded in 40 and 15 patients in C1 and 2, respectively. Age, lymphadenectomy, and fractionation were significantly correlated with toxicity at univariate analysis (p value = 0.029, 0.006, and 0.002, respectively), while stepwise logistic regression confirmed only age and fractionation as significantly correlated parameters (p value = 0.02 and 0.001, respectively). Three-year local relapse-free, distant metastasis-free and cause-specific survival rates were 96.6%, 94.8%, and 99.1%, respectively.

conclusionsThis analysis showed lower vaginal late toxicity rate in C2 compared to C1.

Indexed as

BrachytherapyEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingRadiotherapy, AdjuvantVaginaBrachytherapyEndometrial cancerFractionationInterventional radiotherapyVaginal late toxicity

Identifiers

PMID35092552
PMCPMC8960610
OpenAlexW4210536373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.