ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Dosimetric comparison of MRI-guided and CT-guided intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer.
Article in Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the differences in dosimetry and toxicities between Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Computed Tomography (CT)-guided intracavitary and interstitial implantation for locally advanced cervical cancer, respectively. Methods: We analyzed 40 cases of locally advanced cervical cancer admitted to our hospital from January 2023 to September 2024. Patients underwent CT-guided intracavitary and interstitial implantation followed by MRI scanning. We compared the volume of HR-CTV and IR-CTV, the dosimetric differences of HR-CTV D Results: The mean HR-CTV and IR-CTV volumes were larger using CT guidance compared with MRI guidance (P<0.05), the differences were statistically significant. The HR-CTV D Conclusion: Intracavitary and interstitial implantation under MRI guidance can significantly improve HR-CTV and IR-CTV D
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.