ReviewCancers2024
Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: Neoadjuvant Treatment versus Standard Radio-Chemotherapy-An Updated Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors with chemoradiotherapy/chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer patients: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- A retrospective cohort study comparing long-term clinical outcomes between patients with and without neoadjuvant therapy in stage IB-IIB cervical cancer: a propensity score-matched study.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery vs. radical surgery alone in locally advanced cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Biomedical reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Modern therapeutic approaches for hepatic tumors: progress, limitations, and future directions.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Article
- Comparison of Prognosis between Abdominal and Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomies in Early-stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of choice for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is definitive concurrent radio chemotherapy which consists of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy (CCRT), with the possible addition of brachytherapy (BT). However, the benefits of adjuvant surgery after neoadjuvant treatments remain a debated issue and a still open question in the literature. This meta-analysis aims to provide an updated view on the controversial topic, focusing on comparing surgery after any adjuvant treatment and standard treatment.
methodsFollowing the recommendations in the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, the PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched in April 2023 for early publications. No limitations on the country were applied. Only English articles were considered. The comparative studies containing data about disease-free survival (DFS) and/or overall survival (OS) were included in the meta-analysis.
resultsThe CCRT + surgery group showed a significantly better DFS than CCRT (RR 0.69 [95% CI 0.58-0.81]
conclusionThe results provide updated findings about the efficacy of neoadjuvant treatments, indicating significantly improved DFS and OS in patients undergoing hysterectomy after CCRT or NACT compared with patients undergoing standard treatments.
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.