ArticleBiomedical engineering online2025
Effects of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on survival benefits and poor prognostic factors in patients with cervical cancer.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to explore the influencing factors of survival benefit and poor prognosis of cervical cancer patients under different radiotherapy modalities.
methodsA total of 186 patients with cervical cancer treated in our hospital from January 2022 to December 2023 were selected for the retrospective analysis. 126 patients received static intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) combined with cisplatin. Another 60 cases received volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) combined with cisplatin. The occurrence of adverse reactions, overall survival rate, and recurrence rate were compared between the two groups. COX regression model was used to analyze the influencing factors of the poor prognosis.
resultsThere was no difference between the disease control rate (DCR) and objective remission rate (ORR), and the overall survival and recurrence rates in the two groups. The incidence of myelosuppression was much higher in the IMRT group than the VMAT group. Compared with the survival group, the percentage of lymph node metastasis (LNM) and positive margins were significantly increased in the patients in the death group. COX multifactorial analysis confirmed that LNM and positive cutting margins were independent risk factors affecting poor prognosis after radiotherapy in cervical cancer patients (P < 0.05).
conclusionBoth IMRT and VMAT could achieve certain effects in the treatment of cervical cancer and had similar effects in short-term survival recurrence. However, VMAT had a lower incidence of myelosuppression. LNM and positive margins were factors influencing the poor prognosis of patients.
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.