Safety and Efficacy of 2D Brachytherapy vs. 3D Image-Guided Adaptive Brachytherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer—A Single Institution Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The treatment paradigm for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) has shifted from two-dimensional-brachytherapy (2D-BT) to three-dimensional-image-guided adaptive BT (3D-IGABT). In this retrospective study, we report our experience with the change from 2D-BT to 3D-IGABT. METHODS: We reviewed 146 LACC patients (98 3D-IGABT and 48 2D-BT) who received chemoradiation between 2004 and 2019. The multivariable odds ratio (OR) for treatment-related toxicities and hazard ratios (HR) for locoregional control (LRC), distant control (DC), failure-free survival (FFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) are reported. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 50.3 months. There was a significant decrease in overall late toxicities in the 3D-IGABT group compared to the 2D-BT group (OR 0.22[0.10-0.52]), late gastrointestinal (OR 0.31[0.10-0.93]), genitourinary (OR 0.31[0.09-1.01]) and vaginal toxicities (0% vs. 29.6%). Grade ≥ 3 toxicity was low in both groups (2D-BT: 8.2% acute, 13.3% late vs. 3D-IGABT: 6.3% acute, 4.4% late, NS). The five-year LRC, DC, FFS, CSS and OS for 3D-IGABT were 92.0%, 63.4%, 61.7%, 75.4% and 73.6%, compared to 87.3%, 71.8%, 63.7%, 76.3% and 70.8% for 2D-BT (NS). CONCLUSIONS: 3D-IGABT for the treatment of LACC is associated with a decrease in overall late gastrointestinal, genitourinary and vaginal toxicities. The disease control or survival outcomes were comparable to contemporary 3D-IGABT studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".