ArticleCancer diagnosis & prognosis
Comparative Analysis of External and Internal Radiotherapy- Dependent Plans in Patients with Gynecological Cancer.
Article in Cancer diagnosis & prognosis. 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aim: Radiotherapy plays a key role in the treatment of gynecological cancer. Modern radiotherapy techniques with external beams (e-RT) are applied in a broad spectrum of gynecological cancer cases. However, high radiation doses, affecting normal tissue adjacent to cancer, represent the main disadvantage of e-RT regimens. For this reason, brachytherapy (BT), an internal beam-based technique (i-RT), is suggested following e-RT. Our purpose was to compare e-RT plans using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with those using 3D conformal techniques (3D-CRT) and compare BT plans guided by 3D or 2D imaging based on the potential corresponding toxicity levels. Materials and Methods: In this preliminary, non-randomized comparative retrospective study, 15 females suffering gynecological cancer were enrolled. Modern e-RT and i-RT (BT) techniques were applied. Results: Concerning e-RT, D95/D99/rectum 2cc/bladder 2cc and small intestine 2cc were measured and compared; in i-RT, rectum 2cc/bladder 2cc were measured and compared. The median dose to the planning target volume in VMAT was 97.4 Gy compared with 92.9 Gy in 3D-CRT. Τhe rectum received almost 5 Gy less in VMAT compared to 3D-CRT (median of 43.5 Gy vs. 48.6 Gy; p=0.001). In the bladder, dose differences were minimal, while the small intestine received 47.6 Gy in VMAT (p=0.001). Regarding 3D-BT, the rectum received 63.1 Gy compared with 49.9 Gy (p=0.009) in 2D-BT. Concerning the bladder, mean 2D-BT and 3D-BT doses were 71.9 and 65 Gy, respectively, differing non-significantly. Conclusion: VMAT was found to be superior to 3D-CRT, especially in dose distribution, volume coverage and protection of critical organs. Similarly, 3D-BT should be preferred over 2D-BT due to critical advantages.
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.