ReviewClinical and translational radiation oncology2026
Can stereotactic body radiotherapy replace brachytherapy in gynecologic cancers? A systematic review of current evidence.
Review in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brachytherapy (BT) is a cornerstone of curative radiotherapy for gynecologic cancers due to its ability to deliver high intratumoral doses with steep dose gradients. Limited availability and declining utilization have increased interest in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as a non-invasive alternative. This systematic review evaluates the current evidence comparing SBRT and BT in gynecologic cancers. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted for studies published between 2014 and 2025. Eligible studies included dosimetric analyses, observational cohorts, and consensus statements comparing SBRT and BT. Outcomes of interest were target coverage, intratumoral dose escalation, organ-at-risk exposure, conformity and homogeneity indices, and overall survival when available. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, including nine dosimetric studies, one population-based cohort, and one consensus guideline, mainly focused on locally advanced cervical cancer. BT consistently achieved superior intratumoral dose escalation and higher central dose heterogeneity, while SBRT showed competitive peripheral target coverage and improved conformity in margin-free scenarios. These advantages were reduced when clinically realistic planning margins were applied. The only available survival analysis reported no significant difference in overall survival between techniques after adjustment for prognostic factors. BT remains the reference standard for dose escalation in gynecologic cancers. SBRT may be considered a selective alternative when BT is not feasible, but prospective studies with standardized planning and long-term follow-up are needed to define its clinical role.
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.