ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2024
The significance of free-hand needles in cervical cancer brachytherapy.
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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Modern applicators in cervical cancer brachytherapy (BT) have an integrated option for using interstitial needles. Even though this allows improved dose coverage in large tumors, there are cases where pre-positioned needle arrangements within applicator are not optimal. In such cases, free-hand needles (FHNs) can be inserted into tumor without using applicator's positions. However, this requires a skilled professional, because the depth of tissue must be estimated without any help of needle insertion tools, and the angle of needle is critical. Improved dose coverage of the tumor and the effect on critical organ doses are yet to be estimated, if they constitute the time used and possible additional complication risk using FHNs. Material and methods: In this work, clinical brachytherapy treatment plans using FHNs were compared with hypothetical plans, in which the best possible effort was applied to produce acceptable treatment plans without FHNs. Twenty-four cervix cancer patients with FHNs were re-planned without FHNs. Biological total doses were calculated for target volumes (high-risk clinical target volume [HR-CTV], gross tumor volume [GTV], and intermediate-risk clinical target volume [IR-CTV]) and organs at risk. External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) dose distributions were summed to brachytherapy plans, and total doses were compared. Results: The statistically significant differences favoring FHNs usage were observed, with HR-CTV D Conclusions: The utilization of FHNs resulted in higher dose coverage to HR-CTV, and lower doses to bladder and rectum. There was no difference in GTV, bowel, or vaginal point doses.
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.