Comparison of Iodide-125 and Ruthenium-106 Brachytherapy in the Treatment of Choroidal Melanomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fariba Ghassemi, 1–3 Shahab Sheibani, 4 Mojtaba Arjmand, 3 Hosein Poorbaygi, 4 Emad Kouhestani, 1 Siamak Sabour, 5 Farhad Samiei, 6 Akbar Beiki-Ardakani, 7 Mahmood Jabarvand, 1 Ali Sadeghi Tari 1 1Eye Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR, Iran; 2Retina & Vitreous Service, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR, Iran; 3Ocular Oncology Service, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR, Iran; 4Radiation Application Research School, Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute, Tehran, Iran; 5Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention Research Centre, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, School of Health,Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR, Iran; 6Radiation Oncology Department, Cancer Institute, Imam Hospital and Medical Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 7Radiation Physics Department, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Fariba GhassemiEye Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Qazvin Square, Tehran 1336616351, IranTel +98-21-55421006Fax +98-21-55416134Email fariba.ghassemi@gmail.comBackground: To compare iodine-125 ( 125I) with ruthenium-106 ( 106Ru) episcleral plaque radiation therapy in terms of the effectiveness and non-inferiority for choroidal melanoma treatment.Objective: To report the non-inferiority of new made iodine-125 ( 125I) compared with ruthenium-106 ( 106Ru) episcleral plaque radiation.Patients and Methods: A retrospective, non-randomized comparative case series. In this series the patients treated with 125I and 106Ru episcleral plaques for choroidal melanoma between September 2013 and August 2017 at Farabi Hospital are compared. Local control of choroidal melanomas after 125I and 106Ru plaques implantation and vision changes are the main outcome measures.Results: A total of 35 patients were identified ( 125I = 15, 106Ru = 20). No significant difference between two groups in visual acuity, diameter and thickness changes were observed after treatment. Multivariate linear regression (MLR) analysis showed that final diameter was only, independently and significantly, correlated with the pre-treatment diameter of the tumor (β = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29, 1.34, P = 0.003). The same MLR analysis for the final thickness and visual acuity, after adjusting for age and sex showed no significant difference between two groups. A single patient treated with 106Ru had local tumor recurrence with no one in the 125I group. No statistical difference in the rate of ocular complications was observed.Conclusion: The treatment with our 125I plaques is as effective as 106Ru plaques in controlling choroidal melanoma tumor and preserving the vision during the two and half year of follow-up. The complication rates are alike. It means that the effectiveness of 125I is not only comparable to 106Ru but also superior when the outcome of the interest is the thickness of the tumors.Keywords: brachytherapy, choroidal melanoma, complication, local tumor control, 125I, radiation, 106Ru, tumor size, vision preservation
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".