ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2024
Biological treatment evaluation in thermoradiotherapy: application in cervical cancer patients.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2024. 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.
- Recent development on hyperthermia: An effective cotreatment improving radiotherapy outcome (Review).Oncology letters · 2026Review
- Personalized brachytherapy in gynecological cancers: procedural narrative in patients with a poor response or challenging anatomy after chemoradiation.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHyperthermia treatment quality is usually evaluated by thermal (dose) parameters, though hyperthermic radiosensitization effects are also influenced by the time interval between the two modalities. This work applies biological modelling for clinical treatment evaluation of cervical cancer patients treated with radiotherapy plus hyperthermia by calculating the equivalent radiation dose (EQD
methodsBiological treatment evaluation was performed for 58 patients treated with 23-28 fractions of 1.8-2 Gy plus 4-5 weekly hyperthermia sessions. Measured temperatures (T50) and recorded time intervals between the radiotherapy and hyperthermia sessions were used to calculate the EQD
resultsMedian average measured T50 and recorded time intervals were 41.2 °C (range 39.7-42.5 °C) and 79 min (range 34-125 min), respectively, resulting in a median total dose enhancement (D50) of 5.5 Gy (interquartile range [IQR] 4.0-6.6 Gy). For 30-min time intervals, the enhancement would increase by ~30% to 7.1 Gy (IQR 5.5-8.1 Gy; p < 0.001). In case of 4‑h time intervals, an ~ 40% decrease in dose enhancement could be expected: 3.2 Gy (IQR 2.3-3.8 Gy; p < 0.001). Normal tissue enhancement was negligible (< 0.3 Gy), even for short time intervals.
conclusionBiological treatment evaluation is a useful addition to standard thermal (dose) evaluation of hyperthermia treatments. Optimizing logistics to shorten time intervals seems worthwhile to improve treatment efficacy.
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.