ArticleBMC cancer2026
Re-irradiation with image-guided radiotherapy for recurrent cervical cancer: an analysis of outcomes and toxicity.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRecurrent cervical cancer within previously irradiated fields remains a major therapeutic challenge. This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes and safety of image-guided re-irradiation and to identify prognostic factors associated with tumor control and treatment-related toxicity.
methodsAll consecutive patients who underwent image-guided re-irradiation between March 2020 and December 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Re-irradiation was delivered using image-guided external beam radiotherapy and/or image-guided brachytherapy. Concurrent chemotherapy or immunotherapy was administered when clinically indicated. Organ at risk doses were recorded from re-irradiation plans. Logistic models were applied to evaluate tumor control probability and normal tissue complication probability.
resultsA total of 102 patients were included. At recurrence, 45.1% had central relapse, 14.7% pelvic relapse, 17.6% combined central and pelvic relapse, and 22.5% had distant metastasis. The median re-irradiation dose was 56.8 Gy (a/β = 10). With a median follow-up of 13.7 months, the 1- and 2-year LC were 67.6% and 59.2%, and the 1- and 2-year PFS were 52.7% and 42.6%. Higher re-irradiation prescription EQD2 was associated with improved tumor control. A progression-free interval > 2 years after initial radiotherapy predicted better progression-free survival and local control, whereas distant metastasis was associated with inferior progression-free survival. Higher rectal and bladder D2cc values were significantly associated with increased late toxicity. The risk of grade ≥ 2 late complications rose substantially when the rectal or bladder D2cc exceeded approximately 50 Gy (a/β = 3). No grade 4 or 5 toxicities were observed in this study.
conclusionRe-irradiation is a feasible and effective salvage option for patients with recurrent cervical cancer and provides moderate local control with acceptable toxicity.
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.