Vaginal stenosis after radiation therapy for pelvic cancer: prevention and treatment options - a review of the current literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Pelvic radiotherapy holds a vital role in the management of gynaecological and pelvic gastrointestinal cancers. However, radiotherapy can result in shortening and narrowing of the vagina which is known as vaginal stenosis. The objective of this paper is to review the prevention and treatment options of radiation-induced vaginal stenosis and discuss their benefits and side-effects as well. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed (1972-2017) on PubMed, Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, and SCOPUS with no language restrictions. Cross references from the included studies were hand-searched. The criteria for the included studies were any and every measure for preventing radiation-induced vaginal stenosis. Results: The use of vaginal dilators, sexual intercourse, and topical therapies are the current options for the management of vaginal stenosis after pelvic radiotherapy. Conclusion: Vaginal dilation should be encouraged in cancer survivors after pelvic radiotherapy, with counseling by expertized medical and paramedical personnel. Limited evidence exists in favor of the use of vaginal lubricating creams for radiation-related vaginal irritation. © 2019 S.O.G. CANADA Inc. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".