ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Comparison of differences in hematogenous metastasis among cervical cancer patients by CT-guided three-tube intracavitary brachytherapy and hybrid intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare whether CT-guided three-tube intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) and hybrid intracavitary with interstitial brachytherapy (IC/ISBT) will cause differences in the hematogenous metastasis of cervical cancer.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze 224 patients in our hospital with FIGO stage Ib-IVa cervical cancer whose complete data were available for CT-guided brachytherapy between January 2020 and June 2021. A total of 110 (49.1%) patients were treated with ICBT, and 114 (50.9%) patients were treated with IC/ISBT. These patients were matched for age, histopathological type and grade, FIGO stage, lymph node metastasis status, total radiation dose, radiation dose in the lymph nodes, tumor size before brachytherapy and chemotherapy status. The number of hematogenous metastases that occurred within 2 years after the end of treatment was compared between the two groups.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the number of patients with hematogenous metastases between the ICBT group (n = 5, 4.5%) and the IC/ISBT group (n = 12, 10.5%) (P = 0.091), but there were significant differences in tumor size (P < 0.001), histopathological type (P = 0.023) and lymph node radiation dose (P = 0.006) before brachytherapy between the two groups. By propensity score matching (PSM) between the two groups according to 1:1 matching, single factor logistic regression analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of hematogenous metastasis between the two groups (OR = 0.382, 95% CI = 0.071-2.040; P = 0.260).
conclusionCT-guided ICBT and IC/ISBT do not cause differences in hematogenous metastasis.
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.