SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020
Efficacy and Toxicity of Adjuvant Therapies for High-Risk Endometrial Cancer in Stage I-III: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Errate: Efficacy and Toxicity of Adjuvant Therapies for High-Risk Endometrial Cancer in Stage I-III: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022Pooled it
- The Polish Society of Gynecological Oncology Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Endometrial Carcinoma (2023).Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The use of adjuvant therapy for high-risk endometrial cancer patients (HREC) in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I-III remains debatable. This network meta-analysis was conducted to compare and rank adjuvant therapies based on efficacies and toxicities to facilitate clinical decision-making and further research. MATERIAL AND METHODS We searched 3 databases - PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - from inception to December 9, 2019. Only randomized controlled trials that compared any of these adjuvant therapies (pelvic radiotherapy, vaginal brachytherapy, chemotherapy, and chemoradiotherapy) with each other or surgery alone were included. The network meta-analysis was performed in a frequentist framework using Stata software 15.0. RESULTS Fourteen RCTs with 5872 participants were eligible. No significant difference between treatments was observed in 5-year overall survival (OS) or distant metastasis. Compared with surgery alone, adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy plus chemotherapy (pelvic RT-CT) prolonged 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and pelvic radiotherapy (pelvic RT) (RR=0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.96; RR=0.779, 95% CI 0.63-0.95). Compared with surgery alone, pelvic RT, the combination of pelvic RT and vaginal brachytherapy (pelvic RT-VBT), chemotherapy (CT), and pelvic RT-CT led to fewer local recurrences (RR=0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.50; RR=0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.74; RR=0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73; RR=0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.46). Adjuvant CT was found to result in more grade III/IV late toxicities than surgery alone (RR=11.8, 95% CI 1.02-137.14). Pelvic RT-CT ranked first for OS, PFS, distant metastasis, and local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS Pelvic RT-CT is superior to other treatments for PFS and local recurrence rate, and associated related toxicities are tolerable, suggesting it may be an ideal adjuvant therapy for HREC patients.
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.