Significant Efficacy of Additional Concurrent Chemotherapy with Radiotherapy for Postoperative Cervical Cancer with Risk Factors: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether concurrent chemotherapy treatment is superior to radiotherapy alone as an adjuvant regimen for postoperative cervical carcinoma with risk factors remains controversial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search strategy was used to examine Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the China National Knowledge Internet Web, the Chinese Biomedical Database and the Wanfang Database. Article reference lists and scientific meeting abstracts were also screened. Controlled trials comparing concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in postoperative cervical cancer were included. The methodological quality of non-randomized controlled trials was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Randomized controlled studies were evaluated with the Cochrane handbook. A meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: A total of 1,073 patients from 11 clinical trials were analysed, with 582 patients in the concurrent chemoradiotherapy group and 491 patients in the radiotherapy group. Hazard ratios (HR) of 0.47 (95% CI 0.31-0.72) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.35-0.72) were observed for overall survival and progression-free survival, indicating a benefit from the additional use of concurrent chemotherapy. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that cervical cancer with high risk factors significantly benefitted from concurrent chemotherapy when examining overall survival (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.67) and progression-free survival (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.70), but patients with intermediate risk factors showed no benefit from concurrent chemotherapy in overall survival (HR 1.72, 95% CI 0.28-10.41) and progression-free survival (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.19-6.14). No significant differences were observed for grade 3-4 anaemia (risk ratio (RR) 3.87, 95% CI 0.69-21.84), grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (RR 3.04, 95% CI 0.88- 10.58), grade 3-4 vomiting or nausea (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.27-10.96), or grade 3-4 diarrhoea (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.69-2.83). Significant differences were observed for grade 3-4 neutropenia in favour of the radiotherapy group (RR 7.23, 95% CI 3.94-13.26). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy improves survival in postoperative cervical cancer cases with high risk factors but not in those with intermediate risk factors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".