ArticleCancers2023
Comparing Methods to Determine Complete Response to Chemoradiation in Patients with Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Biopsy-proven residual cervical cancer at the end of combined chemoradiation predicts poor outcome-Retrospective single-center cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Observational
- Multimodality and temporal analysis of cervical cancer treatment response.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Prognostic factors of locally advanced cervical cancer after concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Prognostic value and early response stratification of a multi-biomarker panel in cervical cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere is no consensus on the most reliable procedure to determine remission of cervical cancer after chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Therefore, this study aims to assess the diagnostic performance of two different imaging techniques, MRI and 18F[FDG]-PET/CT, in determining the presence of locoregional residual disease after CRT in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.
methodsPatients diagnosed with locally advanced cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) treated with CRT were retrospectively identified from a regional cohort. The accuracy of MRI and 18F[FDG]-PET/CT in detecting locoregional residual disease was assessed with histology as the reference standard.
resultsThe negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) for locoregional residual disease detection of MRI and 18F[FDG]-PET/CT combined were 84.2% (95% CI 73.2-92.1), and 70.4% (95% CI 51.8-85.2), respectively. The NPV and PPV of MRI alone were 80.2% (95% CI 71.2-87.5) and 47.7% (95% CI 35.8-59.7), respectively, and values of 81.1% (95% CI 72.2-88.3) and 55.8 (95% CI 42.2-68.7), respectively, were obtained for 18F[FDG]-PET/CT alone.
conclusionIn this study, the reliability of MRI and 18F[FDG]-PET/CT in detecting locoregional residual disease was limited. Combining MRI and 18F[FDG]-PET/CT did not improve predictive values. Routine use of both MRI and 18F[FDG]-PET/CT in the follow-up after CRT should be avoided. MRI during follow-up is the advised imaging technique. Pathology confirmation of the presence of locoregional residual disease before performing salvage surgery is warranted.
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.