Observational studyGynecologic oncology2025
Efficacy of induction chemotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic for treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer in Botswana.
Observational study in Gynecologic oncology, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesStandard chemoradiation (CRT) treatment for cervical cancer was disrupted in Botswana during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients were prescribed induction chemotherapy (IC) to bridge delays to radiotherapy (RT) or CRT (IC + RT/CRT).
methodsThis prospective observational study compared outcomes of locally advanced cervical cancer patients who received IC + RT/CRT (n = 67) between 2019 and 2022 to historical controls who received CRT (n = 169) between 2014 and 2019. IC + RT/CRT consisted of four cycles of paclitaxel 175 mg/m
resultsMedian follow-up was 28.9 months (95 % CI 27.4-32.7 months). Two-year OS of the IC + RT/CRT cohort (80.2 % [95 % CI: 69.8-92.1 %]) did not differ from the historical CRT cohort (77.5 % [95 % CI 71.3-84.1 %]). Improved OS was associated with receiving ≥3 cycles of IC on MVA. Secondary analysis among those prescribed IC + RT/CRT (n = 91) demonstrated no difference in 2-year OS (66.8 % [95 % CI: 56.9-78.3 %]) compared to CRT historical controls. Receipt of the prescribed IC + RT/CRT was associated with increased OS on MVA.
conclusionsSurvival of patients who received IC + RT/CRT did not differ from historical CRT controls and was associated with ≥3 cycles of IC, suggesting that IC may be a feasible treatment pathway when RT is delayed.
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.