Rectal cancer is a common malignancy that requires multidisciplinary treatment. By utilizing the dose–response relationship in rectal cancer radiotherapy, increasing the radiotherapy dose can improve clinical complete remission rates. High‐dose rate endorectal brachytherapy (HDREBT) is a novel technique that delivers high doses of radiotherapy directly to the tumor via an endorectal applicator, sparing the adjacent normal tissues from excessive radiation exposure. HDREBT includes contact X‐ray brachytherapy and high‐dose‐rate intracavitary brachytherapy. We introduce the latest developments in applicators and imaging techniques for HDREBT in rectal cancer and summarize the current evidence on the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of HDREBT as a neoadjuvant, definitive, or palliative treatment option for all stages of rectal cancer patients. We also discuss the potential advantages and challenges of HDREBT in achieving organ preservation and improving the quality of life of rectal cancer patients. HDREBT has shown promising results in achieving high complete response rates, enabling nonoperative management, improving organ preservation rates, and providing effective palliation in rectal cancer patients. More studies are needed to optimize its dose and fractionation schemes in different clinical scenarios.

We evaluated the reading characteristics of normal-sighted young adults using C-Read to provide baseline healthy population values. We also investigated the relationship between the National Eye Institute’s Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VFQ-25) score and reading ability, myopia, and hours of screen use, focusing on the extent to which these factors affect participants’ visual function and, ultimately, their vision-related quality of life (QoL). Overall, 207 young, healthy participants (414 eyes) aged 18–35 years were tested for reading speed using C-Read connected to a smartphone-based application between December 2022 and January 2023. Each participant received a VFQ-25 questionnaire to evaluate vision-related QoL. Data on daily e-screen usage hours were collected. Among the participants, 91 (44.0%) were women; their mean (SD) age was 22.45 (4.01) years. The mean (SD) reading acuity (RA) was 0.242 (0.124), 0.249 (0.120), and 0.193 (0.104) logarithmic minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) for the right, left, and both eyes, respectively. The mean (SD) maximum reading speed (MRS) was 171.65 (46.27), 168.59 (45.68), and 185.16 (44.93) words per minute (wpm) with the right, left, and both eyes, respectively. The mean (SD) critical print size (CPS) was 0.412 (0.647), 0.371 (0.229), and 0.419 (1.05) logMAR per the right, left, and both eyes, respectively. The RA and CPS were significantly different between sexes (p = 0.002 and p = 0.001). MRS was significantly different between the education level (p = 0.005) and myopia level groups (p = 0.010); however, it was not clear whether this difference was confounded by age. The myopic power in diopters significantly affected RA (coefficient, −0.012; 95% CI, −0.018 to −0.006; p = 0.001); screen time significantly affected MRS (coefficient, 0.019; 95% CI, 0.57 to 6.33; p = 0.019). RA (coefficient, −21.41; 95% CI, −33.74 to −9.08; p = 0.001) and duration of screen use (coefficient, -0.86; 95% CI, −1.29 to −0.43; p < 0.001) independently had a significantly negative correlation with VFQ-25 scores. Our findings provide a baseline value for C-Read in normal-sighted young adults. Refractive status significantly affected RA, while screen time significantly affected MRS. Interventions aimed at enhancing RA may have the potential to maximize vision-related QoL and enable older adults with impaired vision to achieve greater outcomes. Future, larger-scale, C-Read experiments will help provide newer, more optimal methods for the early diagnosis of visual impairment.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) remains the standard of care for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC); however, 30– 40% of patients experience recurrence, prompting evaluation of systemic treatment intensification to improve outcomes over CCRT alone. This critical review synthesizes evidence from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2026, evaluating clinical trials of intensification strategies categorized by treatment timing: neoadjuvant, concurrent, and adjuvant modalities. Historical attempts to intensify treatment through adjuvant chemotherapy have failed to confer survival benefits with the regimens studied, often increasing toxicity without efficacy (OUTBACK). However, recent Phase III trials have reported survival benefits with specific treatment regimens. Specifically, induction chemotherapy followed by CCRT (INTERLACE) and pembrolizumab with CCRT followed by maintenance (KEYNOTE-A18) have demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival, whereas additional concurrent cytotoxic agents have not consistently improved outcomes and may increase toxicity. CCRT remains the cornerstone; intensification should follow the tested regimen, eligibility criteria, and toxicity profile. PD-L1-based selection and the independent benefit of adjuvant immunotherapy require further validation.