ArticlePloS one2025
Dosimetric divergence in ICBT vs. IC/ISBT configurations: Comparative analysis of three optimization algorithms for cervical cancer brachytherapy.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare dosimetric differences among graphical-based manual planning (MA), simulated annealing inverse optimization (IPSA), and hybrid inverse optimization (HIPO) for cervical cancer in both intra-cavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) and interstitial brachytherapy combined with ICBT (IC/ISBT) settings, providing evidence for clinical optimization method selection.
methodsThis study consisted of 60 cervical cancer patients undergoing CT-guided three-dimensional brachytherapy, including 30 ICBT patients and 30 IC/ISBT patients. Plans were generated using MA, IPSA, and HIPO. The dosimetric parameters for the high-risk clinical target volume (HRCTV) including D100%, V150%, V200%, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) were compared. Meanwhile, the dosimetric parameters D1cc, D2cc for the bladder, rectum, sigmoid, and total treatment time were evaluated.
resultsCompared with MA, both IPSA and HIPO delivered lower doses to organs at risk (OARs). The total treatment time was significantly shorter for HIPO compared to IPSA and MA (P < 0.05). In ICBT patients, the D1cc and D2cc of OARs were lower for IPSA compared to HIPO (P > 0.05), while the CI was significantly better for HIPO (P < 0.05). Nevertheless, in IC/ISBT patients, D2cc of rectum for HIPO was significantly lower compared to IPSA (P < 0.05), with better CI.
conclusionInverse optimization effectively reduces doses to OARs while maintaining target coverage. HIPO appears to be the preferred choice for IC/ISBT, due to shortened treatment time, superior CI and rectal protection compared with IPSA.
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.