4.3 Article

Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology Consensus Guidelines of combined intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy for gynecological cancers

期刊

JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH
卷 63, 期 3, 页码 402-411

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrac011

关键词

JASTRO Guidelines; intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy (IC; IS); cervical cancer; brachytherapy; consensus guidelines; gynecologic cancers

资金

  1. Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the effectiveness and safety of intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy (IC/IS) in treating large and irregularly shaped uterine cervical cancer patients. Compared to conventional intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT), IC/IS is more invasive and thus has a slower implementation speed. The article aims to provide practical and comprehensive guidance for radiation oncologists and medical physicists who wish to start IC/IS, and to accelerate the nationwide utilization of IC/IS by sharing the Japanese approach to managing locally advanced uterine cervical cancer.
It has been postulated that the combination of intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy (IC/IS) is effective and safe for large and irregularly shaped uterine cervical cancer patients. However, due to its invasiveness compared to conventional intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT), it has to be said that the implementation speed of IC/IS is slow. Until now, there have been no guidelines for required equipment, human resources, and procedural guide focusing solely on IC/IS. The purpose of this guideline is to provide radiation oncologists and medical physicists who wish to start IC/IS with practical and comprehensive guidance for a safe IC/IS introduction and to help accelerate the spread of the utilization of IC/IS nationwide. This is the English translation of the Japanese IC/IS Guidelines, and it was created in an effort to share the Japanese approach to the management of locally advanced uterine cervical cancer worldwide.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据