ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2026
Chemoradiotherapy for anal canal cancers: Does the choice of boost technique matter?
Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To analyze and compare the clinical outcomes of boost modality choice after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for anal canal cancers (ACC). Material and methods: 162 patients with ACC were treated in our institution with two different boost modalities: EBRT boost (EBRTb) or high-dose-rate (HDR) interstitial brachytherapy boost (ISBT). Local relapse-free survival (LRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), colostomy-free survival (CFS), and toxicity rates were analyzed. Results: With a median follow-up (FU) of 66 months, thirteen (8%) local recurrences were reported, six in the ISBT and seven in the EBRTb groups. The 5-year LRFS rate for the entire cohort was 87% (80-92%), without differences in both groups: 88% in ISBT vs. 86% in EBRTb group ( Conclusions: CRT provide excellent rates of tumor control and colostomy-free survival. Compared with EBRTb, interstitial brachytherapy boost demonstrates a favorable profile in GI toxicity, with a low impact on fecal incontinence.
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.