ArticleOncology letters2022
Comparing dosimetric and cancer control outcomes after intensity-modulated radiation therapy and tomotherapy for advanced cervical cancer.
Article in Oncology letters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dosimetric comparison and prognostic analysis of helical tomotherapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy in locally advanced cervical cancer.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- Dosimetric and hematological toxicity analyses of bone marrow-sparing intensity-modulated radiation therapy for patients with cervical cancer treated with extended-field radiation therapy.Precision radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Predictors of Clinical Hematological Toxicities under Radiotherapy in Patients with Cervical Cancer-A Risk Analysis.Cancers · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. The present study aimed to compare the therapeutic responses, toxicities and dosimetric parameters between intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and tomotherapy (TOMO) in patients with advanced cervical cancer. This retrospective study included 310 patients with stage IIB-IIIB cervical cancer who underwent CCRT, with 155 patients in each group. Intracavitary brachytherapy was performed after a course of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), or in the last week of pelvic EBRT. The treatment planning aim at point A (defined as a reference location 2 cm above the vaginal fornix and 2 cm beside the mid axis of the uterus) was >85 Gy in an equivalent dose at 2 Gy. There was no statistical difference with regard to clinicopathological characteristics between the two groups (P>0.05). Improved dose conformity and dose homogeneity (P<0.05) were observed in TOMO planning. TOMO provided more efficacious critical organ sparing than IMRT when assessing the percentage of normal tissue receiving at least 20 Gy (V20) for the bladder, the percentage of normal tissue receiving at least 40 Gy (V40) for the femoral head, and the V40 and V20 for the rectum (P<0.05). TOMO demonstrated a greater ability to protect the ovary (P<0.05). The acute radiation toxicity of proctitis and leukopenia were significantly lower in the TOMO group (P<0.05). The chronic radiation toxicity of radiation enterocolitis and cystitis was lower in the TOMO group (P<0.05). Thus, TOMO provided better critical organ sparing than IMRT. The radiation toxicities were acceptable. Therefore, TOMO appears to be a good option for the treatment of stage IIB-IIIB cervical cancer.
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.