ReviewFrontiers in oncology2024
Comparative effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stages IB2 to IIB of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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.
- The impact of sequential chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy on prognosis in adjuvant treatment after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.World journal of surgical 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the comparative efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (NACT+S) versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for patients with cervical cancer stages IB2 to IIB. Method: An exhaustive literature search was conducted up to November 2023 in databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, focusing on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Data were analyzed using STATA version 15. Results: The meta-analysis included data from two randomized controlled trials and eight retrospective cohort studies, totaling 2,879 patients with stages IB2 to IIB cervical cancer. Pooled data showed no significant difference in OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51 to 1.00, p = 0.052] and DFS (HR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.14, p = 0.132) between NACT+S and CCRT. Subgroup analysis revealed that NACT+S provided a better OS in Asian populations, retrospective cohort studies, TP regimen chemotherapy, and multivariate analysis. Conclusion: The findings indicate that CCRT and NACT+S are comparably effective for treating cervical cancer stages IB2 to IIB. Notably, in specific subgroups such as Asian patients and those receiving the TP regimen, NACT+S appears to enhance OS.
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.