ArticleBMC cancer2026
Radioactive seed brachytherapy for malignant tumors with navigation system and 3D-printing template: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare accuracy and efficacy between Image Navigation System (INS, an optical tracking system for real-time needle guidance) combined with 3D printing template (3DPT) versus 3DPT alone in radioactive I-125 seed brachytherapy for malignant tumors.
methods157 patients who underwent CT-guided brachytherapy from July 2020 to June 2023 were included. 27 cases using INS+3DPT were matched 1:1 with cases using 3DPT alone based on propensity score-matching. Needle path error, dose accuracy, and clinical outcomes were compared. Results: Mean needle errors were comparable between INS+3DPT and 3DPT groups: angle error (0.5° vs. 0.5°), depth error (3.5 mm vs. 4.4 mm), and tip error (3.1 mm vs. 2.9 mm). No significant differences were found in dosimetric parameters (D90, V100, V150, V200, CI, EI, HI) or clinical outcomes. The 2-year local control rates were 35.6% and 49.2%, while 2-year overall survival rates were 45.1% and 34.8% for INS+3DPT and 3DPT groups respectively (p > 0.05). Conclusion: INS+3DPT showed no significant advantages over 3DPT alone. The use of 3DPT without INS can achieve satisfactory therapeutic quality in current clinical practice.
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.