ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2023
A retrospective study of locally advanced cervical cancer cases treated with CT-based 3D-IGBT compared with 2D-IGBT.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cervical cancer in the modern era: cutting-edge strategies for diagnosis and treatment.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Revolutionizing radiation therapy: the role of AI in clinical practice.Journal of radiation research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo retrospectively review locally advanced cervical cancer (CC) cases treated with three-dimensional image-guided brachytherapy (3D-IGBT) and two-dimensional (2D)-IGBT. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with Stage IB-IVa CC who underwent intracavitary irradiation between 2007 and 2021 were divided into the 3D-IGBT and 2D-IGBT groups. Local control (LC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and gastrointestinal toxicity (G3 or more) were investigated at 2/3 years post-treatment.
resultsSeventy-one patients in the 2D-IGBT group from 2007 to 2016 and 61 patients in the 3D-IGBT group from 2016-2021 were included in the study. The median follow-up period was 72.7 (4.6-183.9) months in the 2D-IGBT group and 30.0 (4.2-70.5) months in the 3D-IGBT group. The median age was 65.0 (40-93) years in the 2D-IGBT group and 60.0 (28-87) years in the 3D-IGBT group, but there was no difference in FIGO stage, histology, or tumor size between the groups. In treatment, the median A point dose was 56.1 (40.0-74.0) Gy in the 2D-IGBT group and 64.0 (52.0-76.8) Gy in the 3D-IGBT group (P < 0.0001), and the proportion of patients who underwent chemotherapy more than five times was 54.3% in the 2D-IGBT group and 80.8% in the 3D-IGBT group (P = 0.0004). The 2/3-year LC, DMFS, PFS, and OS rates were 87.3%/85.5%, 77.4%/65.0%, 69.9%/59.9%, and 87.9%/77.9% in the 2D-IGBT group, and 94.2%/94.2%, 81.8%/81.8%, 80.5%/80.5%, and 91.6%/83.0% in the 3D-IGBT group, respectively. A significant difference was observed in PFS (P = 0.02). There was no difference in gastrointestinal toxicity, but there were four intestinal perforations in the patients from the 3D-IGBT group, three of whom had a history of bevacizumab treatment.
conclusionThe 2/3-year LC of the 3D-IGBT group was excellent and PFS also tended to improve. Care should be taken with concomitant use of bevacizumab after radiotherapy.
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.