Para-Aortic and Pelvic Extended-Field Radiotherapy for Advanced-Stage Uterine Cancer: Dosimetric and Toxicity Comparison between the Four-Field Box and Intensity-Modulated Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced-stage endometrial carcinoma (eca), extended-field radiotherapy (efrt) is traditionally delivered by the 3-dimensional conformal (3d-crt) 4-field box technique. In recent years, the use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (imrt) in gynecologic cancers has increased. We compared the delivery of efrt by the 3d-crt and contemporary imrt techniques. METHODS: After surgical staging and adjuvant chemotherapy in 38 eca patients, efrt was delivered by either imrt or 3d-crt. Doses to the organs at risk, side effects, and outcomes were compared between the techniques. RESULTS: Of the 38 eca patients, 33 were stage iiic, and 5 were stage ivb. In the imrt group, maximal doses to rectum, small intestine, and bladder were significantly higher, and mean dose to bladder was lower (p < 0.0001). Most acute gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and hematologic side effects were grade i or ii and were comparable between the groups. In long-term follow-up, only grade 1 cystitis at 3 months was statistically higher in the imrt patients. No grade iii or iv gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities were observed. No statistically significant differences in overall and disease-free survival or recurrence rates were observed between the techniques. CONCLUSIONS: In advanced eca patients, imrt is a safe and effective technique for delivering efrt to the pelvis and para-aortic region, and it is comparable to the 3d-crt 4-field box technique in both side effects and efficacy. For centres in which imrt is not readily available, 3d-crt is a valid alternative.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".