Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Introduction: The purpose of this prospective randomized trial was to compare the use of a novel vaginal hydrogel packing system (BrachyGel) to standard vaginal packing (VP) during high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC).
Methods: This cross-over study included LACC patients receiving HDR BT boost (intracavitary +/- interstitial). All patients received alternating gauze or BrachyGel VP on Arms A and B. Patients, physicians, and physicists evaluated BT characteristics via a 4-point Likert scale. Adverse events (AEs) were prospectively collected and scored per CTCAE.
Results: The 20 patients enrolled. The mean bladder D2cc difference between gauze and BrachyGel in Arm A was 0.117 Gray (Gy) and in Arm B 0.013 Gy. The mean difference in rectum D2cc in Arm A and Arm B was -0.189 Gy and -0.191 Gy, respectively. The mean dose to 90% of the high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) for gauze compared to BrachyGel was -0.032 Gy (95% CI: 0.472, 0.409). Patient-reported discomfort was similar with BrachyGel and gauze ("mild/moderate" 70.0% vs 74.0%, respectively). The clarity of VP was similar between BrachyGel and gauze (86.8% vs 89.7%, respectively). The completeness of VP was more frequently "excellent/good" with BrachyGel (79.0%) compared to gauze (56.4%). The ease of packing was more frequently "extremely easy" with BrachyGel (21.2% vs 0%). No serious AEs were reported.
Conclusion: This randomized trial found no clinically significant difference in OAR or HR-CTV dosimetry between BrachyGel and standard VP. BrachyGel performed well compared to gauze for the patient and physician use experience.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11098690 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2024.02.004 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!