ReviewCancers2025
Intraoperative Radiation Therapy (IORT) in Gynecologic Cancers: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cancers, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to analyze the current literature for IORT in gynecological cancers and summarized clinical outcomes regarding patient selection.
methodsA systematic search was conducted utilizing PUBMED, Embase, and CINAHL to identify studies following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A PICOS structure was utilized: population: patients with epithelial gynecological cancers; intervention: IORT; C: a comparator was not required, as we aimed to analyze patient selection; outcome: clinical outcomes and overall survival; and S: experimental and quasi-experimental analytical observational studies and descriptive observational studies, excluding case series published in English and limited to the last 10 years. Data extraction was conducted for patient selection, IORT, oncological outcomes, and morbidity.
resultsA total of 707 results were identified, and 509 studies were uploaded to Covidence for screening after removing duplications. Of the 21 eligible studies, 9 were included in the final review. The total number of patients included was 348. The studies were retrospective single-institution studies, except for one. There was significant heterogeneity in their design and protocols. IORT was exclusively used for recurrent and advanced stage gynecological cancers adjunct to pelvic exenteration or laterally extended endopelvic resections with variable indications across institutions. The mean number of IORT patients per study was 2.8 per year. Survival rates were variable and dependent on the surgical margin. Endometrial cancer had a favorable outcome compared to vulvar and cervical cancers.
conclusionsCurrent clinical practice, as demonstrated by the research, is consistent with NCCN guidelines that endorse the application of IORT in instances of recurrent cervical, vaginal, and vulvar malignancies; however, there are no established recommendations for primary tumors. The analysis shows that there are gaps in our knowledge, mainly regarding the status of the margins, the criteria used to choose patients, and the outcomes that are specific to each histology. The standardization of protocols and prospectively powered studies are needed to refine patient selection criteria.
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.