ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2026
Comparative dosimetric study of single- vs. multi-channel cylindrical applicators in vaginal brachytherapy: Implications for organs at risk and vaginal surface doses.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the dosimetric effects of multi-channel (MC) and single-channel (SC) cylindrical applicators of various diameters on target volume, organs at risk (OARs), and vaginal mucosal doses in vaginal brachytherapy (VBRT). Material and methods: Endometrial cancer patients undergoing VBRT post-operatively were included in the study. Dose distributions in reference parameters were calculated in patients treated with a MC applicator of 25, 30, or 35 mm in diameter, and plans similar to that used in a SC applicator were re-calculated in the same patient cohort by activating only the central axis channel of MC applicator. Comparisons were made between clinical target volume, dose parameters for OARs, such as bladder, rectum, and sigmoid colon, and dose parameters for vaginal mucosa. EQD Results: The use of MC applicator, together with adequate target volume coverage, resulted in lower doses to OARs, such as the bladder, rectum, and sigmoid colon. In D Conclusions: In VBRT, MC applicators offer advantages in target volume and OARs dosimetry, and vaginal mucosal doses appear to be highly dependent on applicator diameter and geometry in addition to applicator type. In particular, MC applicators with larger diameter have the potential to reduce the need for small-volume, high-dose areas in vaginal mucosa. These findings highlight the importance of selecting the appropriate applicator diameter in VBRT planning.
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.