Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39816008›Full record

ReviewAdvances in radiation oncology2025

Global Review of Tools Evaluating Quality of Life in Cervical Cancer Survivors Treated With Chemoradiation Therapy.

Isabela Anawate, Christian Lumley, Sierra Silverwood, Magdalena Anchondo, Kgosi Hughes, Caroline Kernell, Katharine Rendle, Rohini Bhatia, Surbhi Grover

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Isabela AnawateUniversity of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas.
Christian LumleyUniversity of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas.
Sierra SilverwoodMichigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Magdalena AnchondoUniversity of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas.
Kgosi HughesWake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Caroline KernellWake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Katharine RendleDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Rohini BhatiaThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Surbhi GroverDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CAN CTR SUPPORT GRANTP30CA016520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Robert H. Vonderheide · 1985 to 2026
$222.3M
Thibang Diphatlha: Testing adaptive strategies to close the gap from cervical cancer diagnosis to treatment in BotswanaU01CA275032 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Surbhi Grover, Katharine A. Rendle · 2022 to 2026
$3.9M
Prognostic value of quantitative HPV viral load in determining cervical cancer treatment response and recurrenceK08CA230170 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GROVER, SURBHI · 2019 to 2023
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS K08 CA230170NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016520NCI NIH HHS U01 CA275032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This systematic review aimed to identify and compare tools used to evaluate quality of life (QoL) after pelvic radiation for cervical cancer and to describe variations in results within commonly used instruments. This review hypothesized regional preferences in the selection of these tools and an absence of uniformity in their application globally. Methods and Materials: A comprehensive search of 6 databases was conducted between the inception of each included database and June 14, 2023, focusing on studies evaluating the QoL of patients with cervical cancer during and after radiation. Excluded were studies involving cancers originating outside the cervix, those not exclusively undergoing radiation or chemoradiation therapy, such as patients who have undergone surgery, and non-English studies. Results: Ultimately, 229 studies covering 25,693 patients and 51 countries were identified. Most studies were conducted in Asia (35.6%) and Europe (32.9%). Ninety-nine QoL instruments were identified, not including those that were specific to a single study. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (20.5%) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL questionnaire cervical cancer module (16.0%) were the most commonly used; however, US-based studies primarily used the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General surveys. Furthermore, there was significant variability in the timelines of survey usage in relation to when treatment was completed, further limiting the comparisons that can be made. Of the 127 studies that reported data on the time points after completion of treatment at which QoL was measured, 72.4% measured QoL within 1 year of treatment completion, and 48.8% measured QoL >1 year after treatment completion, with some studies using multiple time points for their research. Conclusions: This study revealed a fragmented landscape with significant variability in QoL survey use, limiting the generalizability and usefulness of these results to drive meaningful change. There is a need for a global standardized method to evaluate QoL after treatment of cervical cancer with radiation therapy for comparison across regions. Simplified tools may assist with the broader collection of data, which may lead to advancements for improvement of the QoL of these patients.

Identifiers

PMID39816008
PMCPMC11733041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.