ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
A comparative analysis of hypofractionated versus conventional radiotherapy for cervical cancer in a resource-limited setting: a prospective study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Disease characteristics, treatment, and overall survival outcomes of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer referred for radiation therapy in Johannesburg, South Africa: a 2-year retrospective study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Is Moderately Hypofractionated Radiotherapy a Safe and Effective Strategy for Cervical Cancer?-A Review of Current Evidence.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Hypofractionation has potential benefits for cancer patients in low-income countries by reducing treatment duration and resource demands. However, few studies have examined the potential for higher toxicity due to the increased radiation dose per session, particularly in patients with existing health burdens like HIV. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the toxicity profiles of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) and hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) in cervical cancer patients in a low-income setting, facilitating a better understanding of the associated risks and benefits to ensure safe and effective treatment options. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted at Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital (IALCH) in South Africa from March 2022 to March 2023. A total of 107 patients with confirmed cervical cancer were recruited and randomly assigned to either CFRT (n = 54; 50.50 Gy in 25 fractions) with weekly chemotherapy or HFRT (n = 53; 42.72 Gy in 16 fractions). Additionally, both groups received high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary brachytherapy, with doses of 18.00-, 21.00-, or 10.00-Gy boost. Clinical data and adverse events were recorded and analyzed, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 36.4 (28.2-62.9) years, with 85.0% of patients under 40 years and 86.0% HIV-positive. Most patients in both groups presented with stage IIB and grade II disease. HFRT patients completed radiotherapy significantly faster (median, 35 days) than CFRT patients (median, 62 days) (p < 0.001). Both groups experienced similar rates of gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU), and skin toxicity, although significant differences were found in GI (p = 0.005) and GU (p = 0.01) side effects. Vaginal stenosis was more common in the CFRT group (51.9%) than in the HFRT group (43.4%). Both groups showed comparable clinical responses, recurrence-free survival, and absence of residual disease within 12 months. Conclusion: HFRT (42.72 Gy in 16 fractions) offers comparable outcomes to CFRT (50.50 Gy in 25 fractions) with a shorter treatment duration, making it a feasible option in resource-limited settings.
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.