ArticleThe oncologist2022
Clinical Implication of Simultaneous Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy Boost to Tumor Bed for Cervical Cancer with Full-thickness Stromal Invasion.
Article in The oncologist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to retrospectively explore the clinical implications of simultaneous intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) boost to the tumor bed in cervical cancer with full-thickness stromal invasion (FTSI). PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients diagnosed with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with confirmed FTSI were included. Patients received pelvic IMRT from a dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with (or without) a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to 58.8 Gy in 28 fractions for the tumor bed. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and pelvic-PFS (p-PFS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and independent prognostic factors were explored by Cox regression analyses.
resultsPatients without a tumor bed boost had a poor prognosis. The 5-year OS was 81.3% versus 58.3% and the 5-year PFS rates were 75.0% versus 57.6% (boost vs non-boost). The FIGO stage, pathology, adjuvant chemotherapy, and tumor bed boost were independent factors affecting both the 5-year OS and PFS. Subgroup analysis showed that the SIB group had a higher 5-year OS, PFS, and p-PFS for different stages, lymph node status, and risk groups than the non-SIB group. Recurrence occurred in 268 of 910 (29.5%) patients without SIB and 49 of 293 (16.7%) with SIB. Among patients with recurrence, 113 of 282 (40.1%) in the non-boost group compared with 14 of 51 (23.0%) patients in the boost group had a pelvic recurrence. Tumor bed boost resulted in an increase in the mean radiation dose to the intestine, rectum, and bladder, although there were no differences in the rates of acute and late toxicities between the 2 groups.
conclusionTumor bed boost by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is an effective and safe method for patients with FTSI and risk factors. Compared with the standard prophylactic radiation, tumor bed boost by EBRT was not associated with increased acute and late toxicities.
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.