ArticlePloS one2025
A Comparison of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy for for FIGO 2018 stage IB3/IIA2 Cervical squamous cell carcinoma: Long-term efficacy and safety in a resource-limited setting.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radical surgery (NCRS) and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) based on three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) for FIGO 2018 stage IB3/IIA2 patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma in a resource-limited setting.
methodsThe clinical outcomes and incidence of complications in 137 patients who underwent NCRS with those of 163 patients who CCRT based on 3DCRT were compared. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to match the two groups to enable further statistical comparisons. Survival analysis was performed utilizing Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, Kaplan-Meier curves, and log-rank tests. Furthermore, the incidence of complications between the two groups was also compared using chi-squared tests.
resultsPSM analysis identified 103 matched pairs of patients. The NCRS and CCRT groups exhibited 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of 85.4% and 91.2%, respectively (p=0.19). Additionally, the NCRS and CCRT groups exhibited 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates of 76.7% and 89.3% (p=0.02), and the recurrence rates were 20.4% and 9.7% (p=0.03), respectively. However, the CCRT group exhibited a higher incidence of early any-grade complications (79.6% vs 35.9%, p<0.001) and early grade 3 complications (15.5% vs 2.9%, p=0.002) compared to the NCRS group. In terms of overall late complications, there was no significant difference in the incidence between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that stage IIA2 emerged as an independent risk factor for OS (aHR 8.89; p=0.033). Moreover, histologic grade 2-3 (aHR 5.3; p=0.022), stage IIA2 (aHR 2.95; p=0.043), NCRS treatment (aHR 2.41; p=0.012) were identified as independent risk factors for DFS.
conclusionIn resource-limited settings, for patients with FIGO 2018 stage IB3/IIA2 cervical squamous cell carcinoma, 3DCRT-based CCRT offers superior disease-free survival and reduced recurrence rates compared to NCRS, despite increased early complication rates.
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.