ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2023
Boost modalities in cervical cancer: dosimetric comparison between intracavitary BT vs. intracavitary + interstitial BT vs. SBRT.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can stereotactic body radiotherapy replace brachytherapy in gynecologic cancers? A systematic review of current evidence.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Radiobiology and modelling in Brachytherapy: A review inspired by the ESTRO Brachytherapy pre-meeting course.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Monocentric Retrospective Study: Efficacy, Feasibility, and Prognostic Factors of Single-Insertion High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy With 4 Sessions for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer.Advances in radiation oncology · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PURPOSE /
objectiveThis study compares the dosimetric plans of three distinct boost modalities in cervical cancer (CC): intracavitary (IC) with tandem/ovoids brachytherapy (BT), IC + interstitial (IS) BT, and Stereotactic-Body-Radiotherapy (SBRT). The aim is to determine the dosimetric impact in terms of target coverage and organ at risk (OAR) doses. MATERIALS AND
methods24 consecutive IC + IS BT boost treatment plans were retrospectively identified. For each plan included, two additional plans were created: IC-BT and SBRT. Importantly, no planning target volume (PTV) or planning (organ at) risk volume (PRV) margins were generated, therefore all structures were identical for any boost modality. Two different normalizations were performed: (1) Normalization to the target: prescription of 7.1 Gy to the D90% (defined as the minimum dose covering 90%) of the high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV); (2) Normalization to the OARs. HR-CTV coverage and OARs sparing were compared. The equivalent doses in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) of EBRT and BT for CTV-HR and OARs were calculated using the linear-quadratic model with α/β of 10 (EQD2
conclusionThe key dosimetric benefit of BT over SBRT without PTV is a significantly higher D50% and D30% in the HR-CTV, which increases the local and conformal dose to the target. IC + IS BT vs. IC-BT provides significantly better target coverage and a lower dose to the OARs, making it the preferred boost modality in CC.
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.