ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2024
Clinical outcomes of using 3D-printed applicators for high-dose-rate brachytherapy in gynecological malignancy.
Article 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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Contemporary management of treatment-related dermatologic toxicities in gynecologic cancers: a systematic review based on evidence from 2021 to 2025.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Personalized brachytherapy in gynecological cancers: procedural narrative in patients with a poor response or challenging anatomy after chemoradiation.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the clinical outcomes and toxicities of using 3D-printed applicators for image-guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) in gynecological cancer patients. Material and methods: Fourteen patients with gynecological cancers, both primary and recurrent, treated with in-house 3D-printed applicators between 2021 and 2022 were included in the study, and their data were retrospectively reviewed. Timing and patterns of response to treatment were recorded. Kaplan-Meier estimates at 2 years post-treatment were analyzed to obtain local relapse-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) rates. Actuarial rates of genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and skin and mucosal toxicities were also reported. Results: The median follow-up time for all patients was 27 (IQR: 15.4-32.5) months. Among the primary cases, 2 patients had cervical cancer and 3 had extra-mammary Paget's disease of the vulva. For the recurrent cases, all patients had vaginal relapses. The most common primary cancers were cervical cancer (44.4%) and ovarian cancer (33.3%). At 3 months post-treatment, 13 patients (92.9%) achieved a complete response (CR), and 1 patient (7.1%) showed a partial response (PR). The 2-year rates of LRFS, DMFS, PFS, and OS for primary/recurrent cases were 100%/74.07%, 100%/88.9%, 100%/64.8%, and 100%/88.9%, respectively. The actuarial rates of ≥ grade 2 acute GU and GI toxicities were 7.1% for both groups. For late GU and GI toxicities, the actuarial rates were 14.3% and 21.4%, respectively. In terms of skin and mucosal toxicities, 4 patients (28.6%) developed acute grade 3 toxicity, and 1 patient (7.1%) experienced persistent grade 3 vaginal toxicity. Conclusions: IGABT treatment using 3D-printed applicators for HDR brachytherapy in challenging cases due to incompatibility of the standard applicators with the patient's anatomy or highly advance disease, has demonstrated encouraging outcomes and acceptable toxicity profiles.
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.