ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Interstitial needles versus intracavitary applicators only for locally advanced cervical cancer: results from real-life dosimetric comparisons.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Volume not the defining metric: Dosimetric benefits of adding supplemental interstitial needles for small volume cervical tumors.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2026Article
- Brachytherapy use in cervical cancer: a narrative review.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Image-guided adapted brachytherapy (IGABT) is superior to other radiotherapy techniques in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). We aimed to investigate the benefit of interstitial needles (IN) for a combined intracavitary/interstitial (IC/IS) approach using IGABT over the intracavitary approach (IC) alone in patients with LACC after concomitant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and chemotherapy. Materials and methods: We included consecutive patients with LACC who were treated with IC/IS IGABT after radiochemotherapy (RCT) in our retrospective, observational study. Dosimetric gain and sparing of organs at risk (OAR) were investigated by comparing the IC/IS IGABT plan with a simulated plan without needle use (IC IGABT plan) and the impact of other clinical factors on the benefit of IC/IS IGABT. Results: Ninety-nine patients were analyzed, with a mean EBRT dose of 45.5 ± 1.7 Gy; 97 patients received concurrent chemotherapy. A significant increase in median D90% High Risk Clinical target volume (HR-CTV) was found for IC/IS (82.8 Gy) vs IC (76.2 Gy) (p < 10 Conclusion: HR-CTV coverage was higher with IC/IS IGABT than with IC IGABT, with lower doses to the OAR in patients managed for LACC after RCT. Interstitial brachytherapy in the management of LACC after radiotherapy provides better coverage of the target volumes, this could contribute to better local control and improved survival of patients.
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.