ReviewJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2024
Evaluating the feasibility of modern external beam radiotherapy as an alternative approach to brachytherapy in endometrial cancer treatment: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 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.
- Can stereotactic body radiotherapy replace brachytherapy in gynecologic cancers? A systematic review of current evidence.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Radiotherapy and Its Impact on Patient Quality of Life: A Real-World Cost Utility Analysis in Greece.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Single-Center Preliminary Experience Treating Endometrial Cancer Patients with Fiducial Markers.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This systematic review aimed to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of using modern external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as alternative approaches to brachytherapy (BRT) in adjuvant treatment of endometrial cancer (EC). Material and methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The research question was framed using the PICO method, focusing on patients with EC [P] and comparing modern EBRT techniques (IMRT, VMAT, SBRT) [I] vs. BRT [C], to evaluate their feasibility, safety, and effectiveness, particularly in terms of tumor local control (LC) [O]. Both planning and clinical outcomes, including acute toxicity, late side effects, and LC were analyzed with quality assessments performed using the GRADE framework and ROBINS-I tool. Results: Planning studies revealed that while IMRT and VMAT provided comparable or improved target coverage and dose homogeneity compared with BRT, brachytherapy was associated with lower doses to critical organs. Post-operative SBRT and SIB-VMAT studies reported high LC rates (up to 100%) with minimal acute toxicity. However, the overall quality of evidence was low to very low, with significant risks of bias, mainly related to participant selection. Conclusions: This review highlights that, although modern EBRT techniques, such as IMRT and VMAT are feasible alternative approaches to BRT for post-operative vaginal cuff irradiation, the current evidence does not support their superiority over BRT. Brachytherapy remains a highly effective treatment modality with well-established benefits. Future research should focus on more robust comparisons between EBRT and BRT, considering not only local control and toxicity, but also psychological impact and quality of life, especially in low-resource settings, where access to BRT may be limited.
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.