ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2026
Automated planning in image-guided adaptive brachytherapy for cervical cancer: Impact analysis on patient workflows in high-volume centers.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Image-guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) improves outcomes in locally advanced cervical cancer, but remains resource- and time-intensive, particularly during treatment planning. This study evaluated the impact of automated IGABT treatment planning using a validated model (BiCycle) on workflow optimization and improved planning efficiency. Material and methods: This study analyzed IGABT planning data collected from Institution 1 (India) and Institution 2 (the Netherlands) between January 2022 and July 2024. Intracavitary (IC) and intracavitary + interstitial (IC + IS) implants planned with 3D CT/MRI imaging were employed. Once the target and organs at risk (OARs) were delineated and the applicator was reconstructed, manual and automated planning times (in minutes) for dwell time optimization and dwell time adjustment (fine-tuning) were compared. Mann-Whitney Results: Sixty-nine plans from both institutions were analyzed, consisting of 30 automated and 39 manual plans. The median time for dwell time position selection and optimization was 4.59 minutes (interquartile range [IQR]: 4.00-5.90) using automated planning, and 21 minutes (IQR: 12.00-30.00) using manual planning. The median time for treatment dwell time adjustment was 5 minutes (IQR: 3.46-8.50) using automated planning, and 15 minutes (IQR: 11.00-24.00) using manual planning. In high-volume centers treating up to four patients daily, automation could save as much as two hours daily and enhance treatment capacity by 25%. Conclusions: Automating IGABT treatment planning significantly reduces planning time and improve efficiency.
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.