ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparative impact of supine vs prone positioning on dose distribution, acute toxicity, and setup error in postoperative radiotherapy for cervical cancer: a multidimensional propensity-matched cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postoperative radiotherapy is standard for high-risk cervical cancer, but acute toxicities-particularly gastrointestinal and hematologic-remain clinically relevant. Patient positioning may influence organ dose exposure and setup accuracy, yet its multidimensional clinical impact is poorly characterized. Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients with cervical cancer treated with postoperative volumetric modulated arc therapy between 2019 and 2022. Propensity score matching (2:1) produced a balanced matched cohort of prone and supine treatments for comparative analyses. Primary endpoints included pelvic organ dose-volume parameters, interfractional setup error, and grade ≥2 hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities, evaluated using multivariable logistic regression and linear mixed-effects models. Results: In this single-center retrospective cohort (n = 168), propensity score matching (2:1) yielded 112 balanced patients (prone n = 70; supine n = 42). After matching, target coverage was comparable between positions (PTV_D95: 45.52 Gy vs 45.54 Gy, p = 0.24). The prone group showed higher low-dose exposure in bowel bag and rectum at V5-V15 (e.g., V10 difference -9.84%, 95% CI -17.07 to 1.08; adjusted p = 0.040). Setup error was similar across all axes (p > 0.05). The supine group had significantly higher incidence of leukopenia (92.9% vs 71.4%; p = 0.0073), with prone positioning associated with reduced hematologic toxicity (OR = 14.40, 95% CI 1.60-129.74; p = 0.017). Conversely, diarrhea occurred more often in the prone group (44.3% vs 26.2%, p = 0.070), and supine positioning was protective in multivariable analysis (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.17-0.97; p = 0.047). Conclusion: These findings suggest prone positioning may be preferable for patients with limited hematopoietic reserve, while supine positioning may benefit those with gastrointestinal vulnerability. Positioning choice should be individualized based on toxicity risk and functional anatomy to optimize safety in postoperative cervical cancer radiotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.