Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38689248›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2024

Comparison of outcomes between early-stage cervical cancer patients without high-risk factors undergoing adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy alone after radical surgery.

Yuncan Zhou, Weiping Wang, Jia Tang, Ke Hu, Fuquan Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yuncan Zhou *Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Weiping Wang *Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jia TangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Ke HuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. huk@pumch.cn.
Fuquan ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. zhangfq@pumch.cn.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNPeking Union Medical College Hospital · CN

Funding

National High-Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding 2022-PUMCH-A-103National Key Research and Development Program of China 2022YFC2402305
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFor patients with early-stage cervical cancer without high-risk factors, there is no consensus regarding the optimal postoperative treatment regimen and whether postoperative concurrent radiochemotherapy (CCRT) is superior to radiotherapy (RT) alone. PATIENTS AND

methodsThe medical records of patients with stage I-IIA cervical cancer, who underwent radical surgery and postoperative RT or CCRT between June 2012 and December 2017, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with any high-risk factors, including positive pelvic lymph node(s), positive resection margin(s), and parametrial invasion, were excluded. Patients with large tumors (≥ 4 cm), deep stromal invasion (≥ 1/2), and lymphovascular space involvement were categorized as the intermediate-risk group. Patients without intermediate-risk factors were categorized as the low-risk group.

resultsA total of 403 patients were enrolled and divided into 2 groups according to postoperative treatment: RT alone (n = 105); and CCRT (n = 298). For risk stratification, patients were also divided into 2 groups: intermediate-risk (n = 350); and low-risk (n = 53). The median follow-up was 51.7 months. Patients in the intermediate-risk group and those with multiple intermediate-risk factors were more likely to undergo CCRT. For patients who underwent RT alone or CCRT in the intermediate-risk group, 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 93.4% and 93.8% (p = 0.741), and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 90.6% and 91.4%, respectively (p = 0.733). Similarly, for patients who underwent RT alone or CCRT in the low-risk group, the 5-year OS rates were 100.0% and 93.5% (p = 0.241), and 5-year DFS rates were 94.4% and 93.5%, respectively (p = 0.736). Adjuvant CCRT or RT were not independent risk factors for either OS or DFS. Patients who underwent CCRT appeared to develop a higher proportion of grade ≥ 3 acute hematological toxicities than those in the RT group (44.0% versus 11.4%, respectively; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in grade ≥ 3 chronic toxicities of the urogenital and gastrointestinal systems between the CCRT and RT groups.

conclusionThere was no significant difference in 5-year OS and DFS rates between patients with early-stage cervical cancer without high-risk factors undergoing postoperative CCRT versus RT alone. Patients who underwent CCRT appeared to develop a higher proportion of grade ≥ 3 acute hematological toxicities than those who underwent RT alone.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyRadiotherapy, AdjuvantUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedHumansHysterectomyLymph Node ExcisionMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRadiation DosageRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateTreatment OutcomeCervical cancerDeep stromal invasionLarge tumor sizeLymphovascular space involvementPostoperative concurrent radiochemotherapyRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID38689248
PMCPMC11061922
OpenAlexW4396559129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.