ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2023
Brachytherapy boost in anal canal cancer - A GEC ESTRO PDR task force meta-analysis.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thirty-Two Years of Radiotherapy for T1 Anal Cancer: Patterns, Outcomes, and Side-effects at a Single Institution.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Radiobiology and modelling in Brachytherapy: A review inspired by the ESTRO Brachytherapy pre-meeting course.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Review
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 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: A meta-analysis is presented comparing clinical outcomes and toxicities between high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy (BT) for anal cancer. Methods and material: Retrospective or prospective clinical trials were identified on electronical databases. Data were collected per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-Analyses guidelines. Pooled effect size for HDR and PDR BT were compared using subgroup analyses. Results: Nine retrospective studies with a total of 481 patients treated were included of which 219 with HDR and 262 with PDR. Significant differences were observed between the two groups for baseline characteristics and treatment. The cumulative proportion of stage T3-T4 was lower in the HDR group, 0.15 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.29] vs 0.27 [95 %CI 0.09-0.57] in the LDR group, p < 0.001. Lower BT doses (in equivalent 2-Gy fraction dose) were given for patients in the HDR group, 11.9 Gy [95 %CI 8.2-15.5] vs 19.5 Gy [95 %CI 15.0-24.0] in the PDR group, p < 0.001. No significant differences were found for clinical outcomes or toxicities. The pooled effect size of the overall survival at 5 years for HDR and PDR was respectively 0.82 [95 %CI 0.70-0.94] and 0.82 [95 %CI 0.73-0.91], p > 0.99. The 5 years local control was 0.86 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.81-0.91] and 0.83 [95 %CI 0.77-0.89], p = 0.62. Cumulative toxicity-related colostomy proportion was 0.04 [95 %CI 0.02-0.09] and 0.03 [95 %CI 0.02-0.07], p = 0.85. Conclusion: Both modalities provided a good profile of tolerance and are effective organ conservative strategies for patients with anal canal cancer. In parallel with ongoing developments to better determine the optimal fractionation and dose for HDR-BT treatments, especially in large tumors, PDR BT still has a crucial role for dose escalation strategy in advanced cases.
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.