ArticleCureus2025
3D Conformal Radiotherapy Versus the Conventional Box Technique for Cervical Cancer: A Dosimetric Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) have transformed radiation therapy in gynecologic cancers. However, access to advanced techniques in resource-limited settings is constrained. This study proposes a comparative dosimetric analysis using the cervical dosimetry mapping and planning (CERV-DOSIMAP) framework to evaluate the efficacy of 3D-CRT versus the conventional four-field box technique in locally advanced cervical cancer.
methodsRadiotherapy planning was performed on 30 individuals with biopsy-confirmed International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIB-IIIB cervical carcinoma using both conventional and 3D-CRT methods. Using CT-based organizing, volume goals (gross tumor volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), and planning target volume (PTV)) and the organs at risk (OAR) were defined. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) data were analyzed. Key indices such as conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and dose coverage to PTV and OAR were statistically compared using paired t-tests.
resultsThe 3D-CRT demonstrated significantly higher conformity (CI: 0.92 ± 0.03; p=0.001) and better homogeneity (HI: 0.08 ± 0.01; p=0.002) compared to conventional plans (CI: 0.85 ± 0.04; HI: 0.13 ± 0.02; p=0.003). There was a meaningful reduction in bladder, rectum, and femoral head doses with 3D-CRT.
conclusionThe CERV-DOSIMAP framework validates 3D-CRT as a superior alternative to conventional techniques in improving target dose conformity while minimizing exposure to critical pelvic structures.
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.