ArticleBMC urology2025
Improving prostate brachytherapy outcomes through MRI-Assisted dominant lesion dose painting.
Article in BMC urology, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of using magnetic resonance (MR) images to implement a dose painting (DP) approach in prostate high-dose-rate brachytherapy.
methodsThe study included 45 patients with prostate tumors of varying grades, with the tumors (DILs) manually segmented with a 0.5 cm margin on T2W MR Images. The bladder, rectum, and urethra were considered as organs at risk (OARs) and treated using LLA300-KB plastic needles and the HDRplus treatment planning system. The patients received an external dose of 45 Gy and a boost dose based on the tumor's malignancy, with the dosimetric evaluations and radiobiological analysis performed according to the RTOG protocol and using the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2).
resultsOur study found no statistically significant differences in dose values for the rectum between the DP methods and conventional treatment planning for tumor grades 2 to 5 (p > 0.05). However, two patients with grade 5 tumors showed rectal V75cc values exceeding the limit with the DP method and a 43 Gy boost dose, although the average V75 remained below 1 cc. The analysis revealed no significant differences in bladder dose values between conventional treatment planning and DP methods for tumor grades 2 to 4 (p > 0.05). However, the mean V75cc of the bladder in grade 5 patients with a 43 Gy boost dose exceeded the permissible limit at 1.09. There was no significant difference in urethral V125cc values for patients with tumor grades 2 and 3 between both DP methods and conventional planning (p > 0.05). However, a significant difference was observed for patients with tumor grades 4 and 5. The average V125% and V150% of the whole prostate remained within the standard range of 50-65% and 20-35% respectively for all tumor grades, and both DP methods and conventional treatment planning were within acceptable limits. However, the average V125 and V150 DILs for all tumor grades exceeded the standard limits and showed a significant difference from conventional treatment planning (p < 0.05). Our results showed a significant difference in EQD2 values for the whole prostate and DIL in the DP method for all tumor grades (P < 0.05).
conclusionThe DP approach offers individualized doses but may be limited by the proximity of DILs to OARs.
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.