ArticleTranslational cancer research2021
A model to guide the management and decision of re-planning during radiotherapy for cervical cancer.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo establish a model to predict whether re-planning is needed in the process of cervical cancer radiotherapy.
methodsWe collected the clinical indexes of 132 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer receiving concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy, including 33 factors about tumor markers [carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen 125 (CA-125), squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC)], tumor volume, rectal volume, bladder volume, volumes receiving 30-50 Gy in organs-at-risk (OARs), and the maximum dose (Dmax) received by 1-2 cc in OARs. We established a multivariate model for re-planning evaluation via principal component analysis, and then verified the model based on the internal data.
resultsWe identified the dose index (P1), tumor size index (P2), and volumes receiving 30-50 Gy in OARs and the tumor (P3) as the three most weighted factors of the re-planning model. We set the cut-off for the re-planning modification requirement at 1. The model was consistent with R = 0.12P1 + 0.21P2 + 0.31P3, and it performed accurately that area under the test set characteristics curve (AUC) =0.826].
conclusionsOur proposed method can help to reduce image re-examination during treatment, decrease toxicities in OARs, shorten the radiotherapy course, lessen oncologists' efforts, and save medical resources.
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.