Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42870799›Full record

ArticleTranslational cancer research2026

Sequential chemoradiotherapy

Jia Yang, Huili Chen, Hui Tao, Xinxin Liu, Yan Chen, Xiang Fan, Pengfeng Zhu, Chao Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational cancer research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jia YangDepartment of Gynecology, Changzhou Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Changzhou Medical Center, Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, China.
Huili ChenDepartment of Gynecology, Changzhou Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Changzhou Medical Center, Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, China.
Hui TaoDepartment of Gynecology, Changzhou Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Changzhou Medical Center, Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, China.
Xinxin LiuDepartment of Gynecology, Changzhou Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Changzhou Medical Center, Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, China.
Yan ChenDepartment of Gynecology, Changzhou Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Changzhou Medical Center, Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, China.
Xiang FanDepartment of Gynecology, Changzhou Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Changzhou Medical Center, Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, China.
Pengfeng ZhuDepartment of Gynecology, Changzhou Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Changzhou Medical Center, Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, China.
Chao ZhangDepartment of Gynecology, Changzhou Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Changzhou Medical Center, Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer is one of the most common gynecologic malignancies worldwide, and the optimal adjuvant treatment strategy remains controversial for patients with early-stage cervical cancer with intermediate-risk factors who undergo radical surgery. This study aimed to identify the risk factors affecting prognosis and to evaluate the clinical efficacy of sequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) as adjuvant therapy. Methods: The data of 152 patients with stage IA2-IIA1 cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy with postoperative adjuvant therapy at Changzhou Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital between January 2014 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into three groups according to the mode of postoperative adjuvant therapy: the concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) group (n=56), the SCRT group (n=50), and the radiotherapy (RT) alone group (n=46). Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse reactions were compared among the three groups. Follow-up was performed every 3-6 months until December 2023 or death. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors. Results: The 3-year DFS rates were 67.4%, 85.7%, and 92.0% in the RT, CCRT, and SCRT groups, respectively, and the 5-year DFS rates were 43.4%, 60.7%, and 76.0%, respectively. The 3-year OS rates were 87.0%, 91.1%, and 94.0%, respectively, and the 5-year OS rates were 49.7%, 66.1%, and 84.0%, respectively. The patients receiving SCRT demonstrated significantly improved DFS (P=0.002) and OS (P=0.001) compared with those receiving RT alone, whereas no significant differences were observed between the SCRT and CCRT groups (P=0.18 and P=0.11, respectively). Tumor size was imbalanced at baseline: tumors >4 cm were present in 35/46 (76.09%), 39/56 (69.64%), and 26/50 (52.00%) patients in the RT, CCRT, and SCRT groups, respectively. Severe myelosuppression occurred in 2/46 (4.35%), 20/56 (35.71%), and 15/50 (30.00%) patients in the RT, CCRT, and SCRT groups, respectively (P<0.05 for SCRT and CCRT Conclusions: In this retrospective cohort, SCRT after radical hysterectomy was associated with longer DFS and OS than RT alone in patients with stage IA2-IIA1 cervical cancer, whereas no statistically significant difference was detected between SCRT and CCRT, which should not be interpreted as evidence of equivalence. SCRT was associated with a higher incidence of severe myelosuppression than RT alone; however, its toxicity profile was comparable to that of CCRT and remained clinically manageable. These findings suggest that SCRT may serve as a viable postoperative adjuvant treatment option for selected patients with early-stage cervical cancer and risk factors for recurrence, subject to confirmation in adequately powered randomized trials.

Indexed as

adjuvant therapyCervical cancerpostoperativeprognosissequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT)

Identifiers

PMID42870799
PMCPMC13657821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.