ArticleOncology letters2017
Clinical outcome of extended-field irradiation vs. pelvic irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer.
Article in Oncology letters, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Observation of Prophylactic Extended-Field Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy with Synchronous Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021Trial
- Cervical cancer patient reported gastrointestinal outcomes: intensity/volumetric modulated vs. 3D conformal radiation therapy.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2022Article
- The impact of para-aortic lymph node irradiation on disease-free survival in patients with cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2022Review
- Perspectives of ERCC1 in early-stage and advanced cervical cancer: From experiments to clinical applications.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Prophylactic Extended-Field Irradiation in Patients With Cervical Cancer: A Literature Review.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- Radiographic Number of Positive Pelvic Lymph Nodes as a Prognostic Factor in Cervical Cancer Treated With Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy or Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2018Article
- Treatment Strategies and Prognostic Factors of 2018 FIGO Stage IIIC Cervical Cancer: A Review.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the distinctions in survival and toxicity between patients with cervical cancer with common iliac node or para-aortic node involvement, who were treated with extended-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (EF-IMRT) and patients with or without lower involved pelvic nodes, who were treated with pelvic IMRT. A total of 55 patients treated with EF-IMRT and 52 patients treated with pelvic IMRT at the Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center (Guangzhou, China) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients treated with EF-IMRT had the highest level of lymph node involvement to the para-aortic or common iliac nodes, while patients treated with pelvic IMRT had no para-aortic or common iliac nodes involved (P<0.001). The median follow-up time was 29.5 months. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rates of EF-IMRT and pelvic IMRT were 79.4 and 82.3% (P=0.45), respectively, and the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates of EF-IMRT and pelvic IMRT were 61.0 and 73.7% (P=0.55), respectively. Cox's regression analysis revealed that EF irradiation was a protective prognostic factor for OS and DFS. A total of 16 patients in the EF-IMRT group and 13 patients in the pelvic IMRT group experienced treatment failure (P=0.67), with the patterns of failure being the same for the two groups (P=0.88). The cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 acute toxicities in the EF-IMRT group was 34.5%, in comparison with 19.2% in the pelvic group (P=0.048). The results of the present study suggest that patients with cervical cancer with grossly involved common iliac or para-aortic nodes should be electively subjected to EF irradiation to improve the survival and alter patterns of recurrence. Notably, EF irradiation delivered via IMRT exhibits an increased toxicity incidence, however, this remains within an acceptable range.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.