ArticleCancers2025
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Concurrent Chemoradiation Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy Following Concurrent Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Evolving Role of Radiation Oncology in the Management of Uterine Cervical Carcinoma: A State-of-the-Art Review for Non-Radiation Oncologists.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor enhances radiotherapy completion and safety in concurrent chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a retrospective analysis.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesNeoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiation therapy (NACT + CCRT) and adjuvant chemotherapy following CCRT (CCRT + ACT) have inconsistent effects on the survival of women with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) compared to CCRT. Moreover, the effects of NACT + CCRT and CCRT + ACT have not been clearly compared. This study compared the effects of NACT + CCRT and CCRT + ACT on survival using a network meta-analysis to select the optimal treatment in women with LACC.
methodsThe PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases were searched, and six randomized controlled trials assessing the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in women with newly diagnosed LACC treated with NACT + CCRT, CCRT + ACT, or CCRT alone (controls) were identified. A network meta-analysis was conducted.
resultsIndirect comparisons showed no significant differences in PFS and OS between NACT + CCRT and CCRT + ACT. Direct comparisons also showed similar PFS and OS between NACT + CCRT and CCRT and between CCRT + ACT and CCRT. CCRT + ACT exhibited the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value as a better treatment option for the PFS and OS (CCRT + ACT vs. NACT + CCRT vs. CCRT: 72% vs. 26.8% vs. 51.2% in PFS and 64.3% vs. 45.1% vs. 40.7% in OS).
conclusionsIn women with LACC, NACT + CCRT had no different effects on the PFS and OS compared to CCRT + ACT, despite the relatively higher SUCRA value observed for CCRT + ACT. Further studies are warranted to clarify the effects of these strategies.
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.