ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2022
The role of cesium-131 brachytherapy in brain tumors: a scoping review of the literature and ongoing clinical trials.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Symptomatic radiation necrosis following intracranial brachytherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Epilepsy in Patients with Cerebral Radiation Necrosis: A Scoping Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Redefining the therapeutic landscape of glioblastomas and brain metastasis through cesium brachytherapy and low-kV intra-operative radiation therapy (IORT).Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Review
- Intracranial intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT): evaluation of electrocorticography and peri-operative seizure risk.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023Article
- Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCesium-131 radioactive isotope has favored the resurgence of intracavitary brachytherapy in neuro-oncology, minimizing radiation-induced complications and maximizing logistical and clinical outcomes. We reviewed the literature on cesium-131 brachytherapy for brain tumors.
methodsPubMed, Web-of-Science, Scopus, Clinicaltrial.gov, and Cochrane were searched following the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews to include published studies and ongoing trials reporting cesium-131 brachytherapy for brain tumors.
resultsWe included 27 published studies comprising 279 patients with 293 lesions, and 3 ongoing trials. Most patients had brain metastases (63.1%), followed by high-grade gliomas (23.3%), of WHO Grade III (15.2%) and Grade IV (84.8%), and meningiomas (13.6%), mostly of WHO Grade II (62.8%) and Grade III (27.9%). Most brain metastases were newly diagnosed (72.3%), while most gliomas and meningiomas were recurrent (95.4% and 88.4%). Patients underwent gross-total (91.1%) or subtotal (8.9%) resection, with median postoperative cavity size of 3.5 cm (range 1-5.8 cm). A median of 20, 28, and 16 seeds were implanted in gliomas, meningiomas, and brain metastases, with median seed activity of 3.8 mCi (range 2.4-5 mCi). Median follow-up was 16.2 months (range 0.6-72 months). 1-year freedom from progression rates were local 94% (range 57-100%), regional 85.1% (range 55.6-93.8%), and distant 53.5% (range 26.3-67.4%). Post-treatment radiation necrosis, seizure, and surgical wound infection occurred in 3.4%, 4.7%, and 4.3% patients.
conclusionInitial data suggest that cesium-131 brachytherapy is safe and effective in primary or metastatic malignant brain tumors. Ongoing trials are evaluating long-term locoregional tumor control and future studies should analyze its role in multimodal systemic tumor management.
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.