ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2025
Comparison of dose calculation approaches and clinical dose-response in image-guided head&neck brachytherapy of the oral cavity.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Beyond TG‑43: A PRISMA-based systematic review on model-based dose-calculation algorithms in brachytherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Pooled it
- [Dosimetric comparison of model-based and conventional calculation algorithms in high-dose-rate brachytherapy of head and neck tumours].Magyar onkologia · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) are increasingly applied in brachytherapy, but their considerations in dose-response analyses is still lacking. This study aimed to assess correlations between both TG-43 and MBDCA dosimetry and reports on clinical outcomes for oral cavity brachytherapy. Methods: We considered 158 patients with oral cavity cancer treated in our institution between 2012 and 2021. Survival outcomes and toxicity (soft tissue necrosis, osteoradionecrosis, mucositis, xerostomia) were reported for a median follow-up of 80 months (2-152 months). All clinical, TG-43 based treatment plans were re-calculated using a MBDCA integrated into our planning system. Differences considering several target volume, tissue, and bone dose parameters were evaluated. Parameter correlations with clinical outcomes and thresholds associated with increased toxicity were investigated. Results: Cumulative local recurrence, soft-tissue necrosis, osteoradionecrosis, mucositis, and xerostomia rate were 21 %, 22 %, 28 % and 79 % considering all patients. Substantial differences between MBDCA and TG-43 were observed, especially regarding high-dose areas with changes up to 19 %. A number of dose-toxicity correlations were observed, as for osteoradionecrosis (1.6 % vs. 10.3 % for bone D Conclusion: For oral cavity brachytherapy, several important dosimetric thresholds associated with increased toxicity were determined. MBDCAs for corresponding dose calculations should be advanced and used in clinical practice.
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.