Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37537511›Full record

ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2024

The impact of boost radiation therapy after hysterectomy on cervical cancer patients with close or positive resection margins.

So Jung Lee, Myungsoo Kim, Yoo-Kang Kwak, Hye Jin Kang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

So Jung LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 56, Dongsuro, Bupyung-gu, Incheon, 21431, Republic of Korea.
Myungsoo KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 56, Dongsuro, Bupyung-gu, Incheon, 21431, Republic of Korea.
Yoo-Kang KwakDepartment of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 56, Dongsuro, Bupyung-gu, Incheon, 21431, Republic of Korea.
Hye Jin KangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 56, Dongsuro, Bupyung-gu, Incheon, 21431, Republic of Korea. jade2959@hanmail.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4206-8674
The Catholic University of Korea Incheon St. Mary's Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe investigated the effect of boost radiation therapy (RT) in addition to whole pelvis RT (WPRT) on treatment outcome and safety of cervical cancer patients following hysterectomy with close/positive resection margins (RM).

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 51 patients with cervical cancer who received WPRT with or without boost-RT as adjuvant treatment between July 2006 and June 2022. Twenty patients (39.2%) were treated with WPRT-alone, and 31 (60.8%) received boost-RT after WPRT using brachytherapy or intensity-modulated RT.

resultsThe median follow-up period was 41 months. According to RT modality, the 4-year local control (LC) and locoregional control (LRC) rates of patients treated with WPRT-alone were 61% and 61%, respectively, whereas those in LC and LRC rates in patients who underwent WPRT with boost-RT were 93.2% and 75.3%, with p-values equal to 0.005 and 0.090, respectively. Seven patients (35.0%) had local recurrence in the WPRT-treated group compared to only two out of the 31 patients (6.5%) in the WPRT with boost-RT-treated counterparts (p = 0.025). Boost-RT was a significantly good prognostic factor for LC (p = 0.013) and LRC (p = 0.013). Boost-RT did not result in statistically-significant improvements in progression-free survival or overall survival. The acute and late toxicity rates were not significantly different between groups.

conclusionBoost RT following WPRT is a safe and effective treatment strategy to improve LC without increasing toxicity in patients with cervical cancer with close/positive RM after hysterectomy.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHumansHysterectomyMargins of ExcisionRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBrachytherapyCervical cancerPrognostic factorRadiation therapyResection margin

Identifiers

PMID37537511
OpenAlexW4385521091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.