Trial reportJournal of gynecologic oncology2024
Improving the efficacy and safety of concurrent chemoradiotherapy by neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a randomized controlled study of locally advanced cervical cancer with a large tumor.
Trial report in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Plus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Compared to Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Alone in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with paclitaxel and cisplatin in combination with concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of radiation research · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of induction chemotherapy combined with standard chemoradiotherapy vs. standard chemoradiotherapy monotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in locally advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Emerging Protein Therapeutics as a Strategy for Cervical Cancer Treatment.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2026Review
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Related to Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Among Women with Cervical Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Article
- Advances in cervical cancer: current insights and future directions.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2025Review
- Article
- New Frontiers in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Effect of Cisplatin Cycles on Prognosis for Cervical Cancer Patients Treated With Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NACT+CCRT) vs. concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) patients with large tumor masses.
methodsLACC patients with localized tumor diameter >4 cm, were randomly allocated in an unblinded 1:1 ratio to NACT+CCRT or CCRT groups. Patients in the NACT+CCRT group were given paclitaxel combined with cisplatin (TP) NACT every 3 weeks for 2 cycles, followed by CCRT, with the chemotherapy regimen the same as for NACT. CCRT group were given CCRT with the same as for NACT.
resultsFrom March 1, 2019, to June 30, 2021, 146 patients were included in the final analysis. Sixty-eight (93.2%) patients in the NACT+CCRT group and 66 (90.4%) patients in the CCRT group completed the expected treatment course. The complete response (CR) rate in the NACT+CCRT group was significantly higher than in the CCRT group (87.7% vs. 67.6%, χ²=54.540, p=0.000). In the NACT+CCRT group, the 1- and 2-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher than those in the CCRT group (96% vs. 89% and 89% vs. 79%, χ²=5.737, p=0.017). Additionally, the rate of recurrences and distant metastases was significantly lower in the NACT+CCRT group than in the CCRT group (4.11% vs. 7.35%, χ²=4.059, p=0.021). Most treatment-related adverse events in both groups were grade 3.
conclusionCompared to CCRT, NACT+CCRT might improve the treatment completion rate, increase CR rate and 1- and 2-year OS rates, and reduce distant metastases rate for LACC patients with large tumor masses.
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.