ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2024
Development and validation of a novel scoring system to predict the risk of uterine perforation during intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dosimetric and clinical outcomes study of occult uterine tandem imperfect implantation in HDR-brachytherapy for cervical cancer.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate a novel scoring system for predicting the risk of uterine perforation during brachytherapy (BT) in cervical cancer patients and to stratify patients based on this score to guide the use of ultrasound guidance during BT.
methodsFifty patients with uterine perforation during BT between January 2018 and December 2020 were included. Common reasons for perforation were identified and a scoring system was developed. This was then applied to a cohort of 50 patients without perforation. The 2 cohorts were compared using the χ² test. To validate the scoring system, all newly diagnosed patients who underwent BT in 2021 were scored, and analysed using χ² test and receiver operator characteristic curves.
resultsThe mean score in the test cohort was 10.16 (range=7-14) and 5.92 (range=5-8) for patients with and without perforation. In the validation cohort, the mean score was 6.9 (range=5-10) and 9.33 (range=7-11) for those with and without perforation. Patients with a score <8 were classified as low risk, while those with a score ≥8 were classified as high risk. Among the criteria evaluated for validation, response to external beam radiotherapy, uterine position, cervico-uterine angle (uterine flexion), identification of cervical os at BT assessment, and the total score were significant predictors, while previous history of perforation, uterine length, and additional uterine anomaly were not.
conclusionThe novel scoring system is an effective predictor of perforation risk during BT. Implementing this during BT assessment can optimize the need for ultrasound guidance during the procedure.
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.