Clinical Outcomes of 3 Versus 4 Fractions of Magnetic Resonance Image-Guided Brachytherapy in Cervical Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance image-guided brachytherapy is essential in the management of locally advanced cervical cancer. This study compares disease and toxicity outcomes in cervical cancer patients treated with 24 Gy/3 fractions (Fr) versus the conventional 28 Gy/4 Fr. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective study included 241 consecutive patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2018 stage IB to IVA cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation between April 2014 and March 2021. Disease-free survival (DFS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Cumulative incidence of local failure (LF), distant failure (DF), and G2+ gastrointestinal (GI), urinary and vaginal toxicity were estimated using the cumulative incidence function with death as a competing risk and compared using Gray's test. RESULTS: Of the 241 patients, 42% received 24 Gy/3 Fr and 58% received 28 Gy/4 Fr. With a median follow-up of 3.2 (range, 0.2-9.2) years, there were 14 local, 41 regional nodal, and 51 distant failures in 63 (26%) patients. No significant differences were found between the 24 Gy/3 Fr and 28 Gy/4 Fr groups in 3-year DFS (77% vs 68%, P = .21), the 3-year cumulative incidence of LF (5% vs 7%, P = .57), DF (22% vs 25%, P = .86), G2+ GI toxicity (11% vs 20%, P = .13), or G2+ vaginal toxicity (14% vs 17%, P = .48), respectively. The 3-year cumulative G2+ urinary toxicity rate was lower in the 24 Gy/3 Fr group (9% vs 23%, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cervical cancer treated with 24 Gy/3 Fr had similar DFS, LF, DF, GI, and vaginal toxicity rates and a trend toward a lower G2+ urinary toxicity rate compared with those treated with 28 Gy/4 Fr. A less resource-intensive brachytherapy fractionation schedule of 24 Gy/3 Fr is a safe alternative to 28 Gy/4 Fr for definitive treatment of cervical cancer.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".