ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2025
Dosimetric comparison between manual and inverse optimization methods in high-dose-rate intracavitary/ interstitial cervical cancer brachytherapy for two treatment planning systems.
Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare manual treatment planning with two inverse planning methods from two different treatment planning systems for high-dose-rate cervical cancer brachytherapy. Material and methods: Thirty-one consecutive patients were included. Three treatment plans were created: manual, hybrid inverse treatment planning (HIPO), and RayStation Brachy (RSB), using Oncentra TPS for manual and HIPO, and RayStation TPS for RSB. Dose volume parameters, dwell time in intrauterine tandem, ovoids, and interstitial needles as well as Paddick, COIN, and dwell time inhomogeneity index, were evaluated. Results: Compared with manual planning, HIPO plans resulted in a higher dose to targets while reducing the dose to organs at risk. It reduced the total treatment time and increased the loading in interstitial needles. RSB plans resulted in a similar dose to targets and organs at risk and a similar total treatment time, but a better homogeneity of dose distribution. All dosimetric indices were increased with inverse optimization. Conclusions: Both inverse planning methods are able to produce dosimetrically acceptable plans, with an increase of target coverage and better homogeneity. RSB provides higher doses and better homogeneity than HIPO.
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.