ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2026
Dosimetric comparison between brachytherapy and MR-Linac as a boost modality for locally advanced cervical cancer.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is chemoradiotherapy followed by a brachytherapy (BT) boost. However, BT is not always feasible and magnetic resonance (MR)-guided adaptive radiotherapy on the MR-Linac (MRL) might be an alternative. To investigate the dosimetric feasibility of MRL, BT and MRL treatment plans were compared intra-patient in terms of dosimetric differences, next to anatomical and conformity variations. Materials and methods: Two groups of ten patients with LACC treated with BT boost were selected: group 1 included patients for which at least one clinically established (EMBRACE II) treatment planning constraint was not achieved during BT, in group 2 all planning constraints were achieved.BT treatment plans were compared with MRL treatment plans (based on MRI scans without applicator in place) intra-patient, in terms of dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters, target-to-OAR (organ at risk) surface distances and conformity ratios. Results: Group 1 resulted in similar prescribed target dose levels for MRL compared to BT, for group 2 all prescribed target dose levels were significantly higher for BT. Rectum D2cm Conclusion: This retrospective study demonstrates that with an MRL boost plan, in some situations it is possible to achieve established planning constraints. However, as rectum doses are higher and dose distributions are fundamentally different, BT remains the modality of choice. Clinical trials are necessary to investigate the influence of the MRL dose distribution on oncological outcomes.
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.