ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2023
Applicator-guided proton therapy versus multichannel brachytherapy for vaginal vault irradiation.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To dosimetrically compare applicator-guided intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and multichannel brachytherapy (MC-BRT) for vaginal vault irradiation (VVI) with special focus on dose to organs at risk (OARs) and normal tissues. Ten patients with uterine confined endometrial cancer who received adjuvant vaginal cuff brachytherapy were included in this study. For each patient an additional IMPT treatment plan was created using the same computed tomography dataset and contours segmented for MC-BRT plans. Clinical target volume (CTV) was defined as the proximal 3.5 cm of the vagina including the entire thickness of vaginal wall. Planning target volume for IMPT plans was generated from the CTV with an addition isotropic 3 mm margin. OARs included rectum, bladder, sigmoid, small bowel and femoral heads. The prescribed dose was 21 Gy in 3 fractions. For simplicity, all doses were expressed in Gy and a constant relative biological effectiveness of 1.1 was used for IMPT plans. Plan comparison was performed using dose-volume histogram and treatment planning parameters. A significant improvement of the D98% coverage for CTV was reached by the applicator-guided IMPT plans (p < 0.01). IMPT also provided a dose reduction in all OARs except for femoral heads due to the lateral beam direction, especially significant reduction of V5Gy, D2cc, D0.1 cc, Dmean, V95% values for the rectum and Dmean, D0.1 cc to bladder, sigmoid, small bowel. Additionally, IMPT plans showed a significant reduction of integral dose to normal tissue with respect to MC-BRT (221.5 cGy.L vs. 653.6 cGy.L, p < 0.01). Applicator-guided IMPT has the potential for improving plan quality in VVI while maintaining the high conformity afforded by the state-of-the-art intracavitary brachytherapy.
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.