ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2026
Intensity-modulated radiotherapy/Volumetric modulated Arc therapy including four Brachytherapy fractions versus 3D conformal radiotherapy containing five Brachytherapy fractions in the treatment of cervical cancer.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDefinitive radiochemotherapy with external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy is standard for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). Advanced techniques like intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) have replaced 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). This study compares two institutional definitive radiotherapy treatment pathways implemented in different time periods: 3DCRT with five BT fractions and IMRT/VMAT with four BT fractions.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 145 patients with FIGO 2018 stage IB3–IVA LACC treated during 2008–2023. Patients received 3DCRT+5BT (2008–2016; n = 77) or IMRT/VMAT+4BT (2017–2023; n = 68) with concurrent chemotherapy. Histopathological biopsies at final BT evaluated tumor response. Dosimetric parameters (HRCTV-D90–EQD2₍₁₀₎ and OAR-D2cc for bladder, rectum, sigmoid) were analyzed. Endpoints included treatment duration, residual tumor, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity.
resultsAfter a median follow-up of 60 months, no significant differences were seen in PFS (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.34–1.38, p = 0.285) or OS (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17–1.29, p = 0.133). Histologically confirmed residual tumor rates were 22.1% (IMRT/VMAT+4BT) vs. 31.2% (3DCRT+5BT; p = 0.262). IMRT/VMAT+4BT patients more often completed therapy within 49 days (63.2% vs. 20.8%; p < 0.001). Median HRCTV D90 EQD2₍₁₀₎ was 85.3 Gy vs. 76.5 Gy (p < 0.001) in favor of IMRT/VMAT, while OAR doses remained within limits. IMRT/VMAT showed significantly fewer gastrointestinal, genitourinary, skin, and mucosal toxicities (all p < 0.05) and less systemic deterioration.
conclusionIn this era-based single-institution comparison of two treatment pathways, IMRT/VMAT+4BT achieved numerically better oncologic outcomes without reaching statistical significance. IMRT/VMAT+4BT showed improved target coverage, lower toxicity, and shorter treatment duration, within the context of an integrated regimen change over time.
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.