ReviewJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2024
The Elekta Esteya
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Radiotherapeutic Modalities and Advancements in the Treatment of Cutaneous Malignancies.Journal of clinical 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The study was conducted to provide support for the delivery of electronic brachytherapy (EBx) in patients with low-risk non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) lesions who prefer and benefit a non-surgical treatment. Material and methods: This study included 205 patients with a total of 236 lesions. Six centers participated in this study using high-dose-rate EBx in NMSC. Eligible patients had pathologically confirmed basal cell or squamous cell carcinoma of clinical stage Tis, T1, or T2, with two or fewer high-risk clinical or pathologic features. Treatment doses were chosen from a set of fractionation schemes delivering 69-72 Gy (BED). Maximum follow-up was 5 years. Results: The median age was 74 (range, 56-96) years, and 62% of the subjects were males and 38% females. The median follow-up was 24.2 months, with a maximum of 73.5 months. Healthcare professional (HCP) and patient-rated cosmesis were rated excellent/good (E/G) by both groups at 90-100% rates, except for HCP ratings of 1-3 months post-EBx, where cosmesis was rated 83-87% E/G. Erythema was the most common acute adverse event (34.1% at 1 month), rebounding back to zero by 6 months. There was a single lesion recurrence. Conclusions: This report provides additional phase IV clinical data on NMSC treated with electronic brachytherapy. With 2-year median follow-up, there was one recurrence (0.42%). Patients tolerated the treatments well, as evidenced by strong and longitudinal scores on the skin cancer index as well as cosmetic evaluations performed by both patients and healthcare providers. Adverse rates were low, except for expected acute erythema, chronic hypopigmentation, and telangiectasia. The study provides additional information on EBx delivery for low-risk NMSC lesions in patents who prefer non-surgical treatment, especially those at risk for surgical complications, surgical cosmesis issues, keloid formation, wound care issues, and use of anticoagulant therapy.
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.