Scholarlink

Objective <p>To compare accuracy and efficacy between Image Navigation System (INS, an optical tracking system for real-time needle guidance) combined with 3D printing template (3DPT) versus 3DPT alone in radioactive I-125 seed brachytherapy for malignant tumors.</p> Methods <p>157 patients who underwent CT-guided brachytherapy from July 2020 to June 2023 were included. 27 cases using INS+3DPT were matched 1:1 with cases using 3DPT alone based on propensity score-matching. Needle path error, dose accuracy, and clinical outcomes were compared. Results: Mean needle errors were comparable between INS+3DPT and 3DPT groups: angle error (0.5° vs. 0.5°), depth error (3.5&#xa0;mm vs. 4.4&#xa0;mm), and tip error (3.1&#xa0;mm vs. 2.9&#xa0;mm). No significant differences were found in dosimetric parameters (D90, V100, V150, V200, CI, EI, HI) or clinical outcomes. The 2-year local control rates were 35.6% and 49.2%, while 2-year overall survival rates were 45.1% and 34.8% for INS+3DPT and 3DPT groups respectively (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). Conclusion: INS+3DPT showed no significant advantages over 3DPT alone. The use of 3DPT without INS can achieve satisfactory therapeutic quality in current clinical practice.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Radioactive seed brachytherapy for malignant tumors with navigation system and 3D-printing template: a propensity score-matched analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月21日

查看全文
  • Zhe Ji,
  • Haitao Sun,
  • Yuliang Jiang,
  • Bin Qiu,
  • Yi Chen,
  • Mao Li,
  • Jinghong Fan,
  • Junjie Wang

摘要

Objective

To compare accuracy and efficacy between Image Navigation System (INS, an optical tracking system for real-time needle guidance) combined with 3D printing template (3DPT) versus 3DPT alone in radioactive I-125 seed brachytherapy for malignant tumors.

Methods

157 patients who underwent CT-guided brachytherapy from July 2020 to June 2023 were included. 27 cases using INS+3DPT were matched 1:1 with cases using 3DPT alone based on propensity score-matching. Needle path error, dose accuracy, and clinical outcomes were compared. Results: Mean needle errors were comparable between INS+3DPT and 3DPT groups: angle error (0.5° vs. 0.5°), depth error (3.5 mm vs. 4.4 mm), and tip error (3.1 mm vs. 2.9 mm). No significant differences were found in dosimetric parameters (D90, V100, V150, V200, CI, EI, HI) or clinical outcomes. The 2-year local control rates were 35.6% and 49.2%, while 2-year overall survival rates were 45.1% and 34.8% for INS+3DPT and 3DPT groups respectively (p > 0.05). Conclusion: INS+3DPT showed no significant advantages over 3DPT alone. The use of 3DPT without INS can achieve satisfactory therapeutic quality in current clinical practice.