ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2025
MRI-based image-guided adaptive brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer in clinical routine: a single-institution experience.
Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Dosimetric comparison of MRI-guided and CT-guided intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: MRI-based image-guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) is a new approach for individual dose escalation and control of organ at risk (OAR) doses and toxicities in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer. Methods: Various radiotherapy-related parameters and the feasibility of the treatment based on acute toxicity were analyzed in a total of 50 cases in two cohorts who received a brachytherapy (BT) boost after definitive chemoradiotherapy with either an MRI-based IGABT technique (24 patients) or CT-only image guidance (26 patients). For target volume, OAR delineation, and dose prescription, the EMBRACE II protocol was followed. Results: The features of the target volumes and dose coverage did not differ between the two groups regarding teletherapy. At BT, however, while the High-Risk Clinical Target Volumes (CTVHR) did not differ the D90 dose coverage was significantly higher in the MRI-based IGABT group than in the non-MRI-based group (7.37 ± 0.55 Gy vs. 6.87 ± 0.84 Gy, p = 0.015). The CTVHR D98 doses showed a strong trend in favor of the MRI-based technique (6.16 ± 0.59 Gy, vs. 5.72 ± 0.95 Gy, p = 0.051). Cumulative doses to the CTVHR by means of both D90 and D98 were significantly higher in the MRI-based treatment group than the other group (86.64 ± 4.76 Gy vs. 81.56 ± 8.29 Gy, p = 0.011 and 77.23 ± 4.39 Gy vs. 73.40 ± 7.80 Gy, p = 0.037, respectively). Regarding OAR exposure, doses to the bladder, rectum, and sigmoid did not differ between the two cohorts. Conclusion: Our first clinical results support the implementation of IGABT as a key component of image-guided adaptive radiotherapy (IGART) aiming at tumor dose-escalation and OAR protection.
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.