ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparative analysis of toxicity and treatment outcomes of adaptive radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in cervical cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interfractional variability and reproducibility of accumulated dose in cervical cancer radiotherapy associated with bladder volume.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Disease characteristics, treatment, and overall survival outcomes of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer referred for radiation therapy in Johannesburg, South Africa: a 2-year retrospective study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- The role of long non-coding RNAs in therapy resistance of cervical cancer and therapeutic potential.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Three-Dimensional Bioprinting and Infertility-Related Female Reproductive System Diseases: A Review of Current and Future Applications.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) provides greater benefits than intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) regarding dosimetric outcomes in patients with cervical cancer. To investigate the clinical benefits of ART, we have collected data from 115 cervical cancer patients who underwent radical radiotherapy at our institution. Fifty-nine patients received a single course of IMRT. Fifty-six patients underwent offline ART, defined as the reduction of the gross tumor volume (GTV) by at least 30% after 30 Gy of radiotherapy, followed by a modified treatment plan for the second-stage. After treatment, 53 patients of ART group achieved a partial response (PR) or completement response (CR), resulting in an objective response rate (ORR) of 94.6% for the ART group, compared to 93.2% for the IMRT group. Patients in both groups exhibited no significant differences in acute toxicities. However, the incidence of chronic constipation was significantly higher in the IMRT group compared to the ART group (p = 0.021). With a median follow-up time of 27 months, the ART group experienced a higher mortality (10/56) than the IMRT group (6/59). However, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. In summary, ART may be advantageous in reducing the incidence of chronic constipation among patients with locally advanced cervical cancer, and both clinical prognosis and near-term survival are satisfactory.
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.