Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33469927›Full record

SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2021

Salvage surgery for patients with residual disease after chemoradiation therapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: A systematic review on indication, complications, and survival.

Kim G G van Kol, Renée M F Ebisch, Jurgen M J Piek, Petra L M Zusterzeel, Tineke F M Vergeldt, Ruud L M Bekkers

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kim G G van KolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catherina Cancer Institute, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1798-5593
Renée M F EbischDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catherina Cancer Institute, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Jurgen M J PiekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catherina Cancer Institute, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Petra L M ZusterzeelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Tineke F M VergeldtDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Ruud L M BekkersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catherina Cancer Institute, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionStandard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer is chemoradiation therapy. Treatment with chemoradiation therapy harbors a risk of local residual disease, which can be curatively treated with salvage surgery, but the risk of complications following surgical procedures in radiated tissue is not negligible. The presence of residual disease can be radiologically and/or histologically diagnosed. The objective of this study is to describe studies that report on salvage surgery for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer after primary treatment with chemoradiation therapy. Therefore, we assessed the method of determining the presence of residual disease, the risk of complications, and the survival rate after salvage surgery. MATERIAL AND

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database were searched from inception up to 6 March 2020. Titles and abstracts were independently assessed by two researchers. Studies were eligible for inclusion when patients had locally advanced cervical cancer with radiologically suspected or histologically confirmed residual disease after chemoradiation therapy, diagnosed with a CT, MRI, or PET-CT scan, or biopsy. Information on complications after salvage surgery and survival outcomes had to be reported. Methodological quality of the articles was independently assessed by two researchers with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

resultsOf the 2963 screened articles, six studies were included, representing 220 women. A total of 175 patients were treated with salvage surgery, of whom 27%-100% had residual disease on the surgery specimen. Of the 161 patients treated with salvage surgery based on positive biopsy results, 72%-100% showed residual disease on the surgery specimen. Of the 44 patients treated with salvage surgery based on suspected residual disease on radiology, 27%-48% showed residual disease on the salvage surgery specimen. A total of 105 complications were registered in 175 patients treated with salvage surgery. The overall survival rate after salvage surgery was 69% (mean follow-up period of 24.9 months).

conclusionsIt is necessary to confirm residual disease by biopsy before performing salvage surgery in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer primarily treated with chemoradiation therapy. Salvage surgery only based on radiologically suspected residual disease should be avoided to prevent unnecessary surgery and complications.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm, ResidualNeoplasm StagingRadiotherapy, AdjuvantSalvage TherapyUterine Cervical Neoplasmschemoradiation therapycomplicationslocally advanced cervical cancerrecurrenceresidual diseasesalvage surgerysurvival

Identifiers

PMID33469927
PMCPMC8359234
OpenAlexW3123052005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.