ArticleCancer management and research2025
A Retrospective Analysis Comparing the Dosimetric Parameters of Two Rectum-Sparing Techniques During Intracavitary Brachytherapy with Tandem-Ring Applicators for Cervical Cancer.
Article in Cancer management and research, 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.
- Effects of rectal retractor use on dosimetric parameters, treatment-related adverse events, and clinical outcomes of cervical cancer brachytherapy: A retrospective tertiary-centre study.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2027Article
- Evaluation of Interfraction Dose Discrepancies in Organs at Risk, Clinical Target Volume, and Points A and B in Computed Tomography-based High-dose-rate Intracavitary Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancer Patients.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Conventional intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) operative procedures with tandem-ring (TR) applicators utilizing standard rectal retractor (RR) blades for rectum separation did not allow for optimal rectum sparing, especially in patients with roomy vagina. This limitation was overcome by modifying the technique by placing customized vaginal packing (VP) alongside a standard RR blade based on the patient specific spacial constraints to supplement the rectum displacement. The paper compares the modified technique with the conventional technique of using RR alone on the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements-38 (ICRU-38) rectum and bladder point doses. Methods: Between January 2021 and August 2022, 41 cancer patients received at least one ICBT fraction with the conventional and at least one with the modified technique for rectum separation using the same applicator set and loading pattern. The remaining ICBT fractions were done using that technique, which gave the best dosimetric parameters during previous fractions in that particular patient. Results: Out of the 111 ICBT fractions utilizing TR applicators, 44 fractions done with the conventional technique constitute conventional group, whereas 67 fractions with the modified technique constitute the modified group. For the same dose (100%) prescribed to point A in both groups, the mean dose to the ICRU rectal point was 44.1% of the prescription dose (range: 23.8-77.8%, median: 42.5%) in modified group and 55.5% (range: 36.4-73.1%, median: 56.5%) in the conventional group. There was 11.4% reduction in mean dose to the ICRU rectal point (p < 0.001) in the modified group. The other point doses and volume parameters were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: Modified technique of combining rectal retractor with customised vaginal packing significantly reduced the ICRU rectal point dose, compared to using a rectal retractor alone during brachytherapy with tandem-ring applicators.
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.