ArticleBMC cancer2025
Dosimetric analysis of plans using x-ray and γ-ray combination strategy for advanced cervical cancer patients with pelvic lymph node metastasis.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRadiotherapy is a standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. Based on the inherent characteristics of X-ray and γ-ray radiation techniques, we propose and investigate an innovative dual-modality radiation system incorporating both X-ray and γ-ray modalities. This study compares the quality of radiation treatment plans for patients with CC, generated using the dual-modality (TaiChi) system and a conventional LINAC X-ray system.
methodsRetrospective treatment plans using volumetric modulated arc therapy were selected for 12 patients with CC. Dual-modality plans were developed for these patients. All patients had the same prescription dose of 50 Gy/25 fractions for planning tumor volume (PTV) and 60 Gy/25 fractions for PTV-nd. The dose conformity index (CI) and gradient index (GI) were calculated to evaluate the dose coverage and drop for the target. The dose indices, Dmean, Dmax, and Dmin, were calculated for both the target and organs at risk (OARs).
resultsBoth strategies generated dosimetrically acceptable plans. For both PTV-nd and PTV, the plans of TaiChi demonstrated higher CI values (PTV-nd: 0.68 ± 0.11 vs. 0.57 ± 0.22, P-value = 0.1375; PTV: 0.91 ± 0.02 vs. 0.90 ± 0.02, P-value = 0.1053) and lower GI values (PTV-nd: 280.62 ± 302.86 vs. 300.65 ± 317.83, P-value = 0.0094; PTV: 3.36 ± 0.22 vs. 3.66 ± 0.32, P-value = 0.0015) compared with the plans of the conventional LINAC system. For both PTV-nd and PTV, the TaiChi plans exhibited superior dosimetric indices compared to the LINAC plans. Specifically, the Dmax (78.27±5.20 Gy vs. 66.61±1.51 Gy) and Dmean (66.85±1.61 Gy vs. 63.22±1.03 Gy) of the TaiChi plans were significantly higher than those of the LINAC plans. Although the Dmin (61.06±0.52 Gy vs. 60.46±1.33 Gy) of the TaiChi plans was also higher than that of the LINAC plans, the difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, TaiChi plans significantly reduced radiation exposure to OARs compared to LINAC plans, demonstrating improved organ protection. This was particularly evident for the spinal cord PRV, with the TaiChi plans yielding a maximum dose of 23.61±2.80 Gy, compared to 29.85±3.23 Gy for the LINAC plans (P-value = 0.0005).
conclusionsThe dual-modality system has the potential to enhance treatment outcomes in CC by optimizing tumor coverage while reducing toxicity. Future clinical trials should assess its impact on patient survival and treatment-related side effects to bridge the gap between dosimetric improvements and clinical application.
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.