ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2020
Long-term patient-reported distress in locally advanced cervical cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiation.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Chemoradiotherapy on Quality of Life in Cervical Cancer Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Incidence of vaginal toxicities following definitive chemoradiation in intact cervical cancer: A meta-analysis.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2024Review
- Utilization and Impact of a Radiation Nursing Clinic to Address Acute Care Needs for Patients with Gynecologic Cancers.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- The burden of cervical cancer survivorship: Understanding morbidity and survivorship needs through hospital admissions.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2024Article
- Pain and symptom relief using inhaled methoxyflurane for gynecologic brachytherapy applicator removal.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeTo evaluate longitudinal patient-reported distress in cervical cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiation (CRT). MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween 2011 and 2016, consenting cervical cancer patients treated with definitive CRT who completed ≥ 2 revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires at clinical visits, including baseline, were included. A linear mixed model was used to assess the longitudinal trend in ESAS-r. A minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for total ESAS-r score was defined as a change of 3-points for improvement and 4-points for deterioration. The proportion of patients with an MCID over time was described using moving averages. To test for changes, mixed effects logistic models were fitted, each of which included patient-specific random intercepts and random slopes.
results67 patients were eligible for analysis (736 ESAS-r assessments). Median (range) follow-up was 24 months (range: 15-45) and compliance at 12 months was 60% (40/67). There was a significant decrease in ESAS-r scores over time. Baseline ESAS-r was strongly predictive of ESAS-r at follow-up (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with an MCID for improvement from baseline significantly increased over time (p < 0.001) and the proportion with an MCID for deterioration significantly decreased over time (p < 0.001). No predictors for distress were found.
conclusionsLong-term cervical cancer survivors experience distress that significantly improves over time to an extent expected to be clinically meaningful for patients. Implementing cervical cancer specific patient-reported outcome tools into practice could better inform patient needs.
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.