Comparison of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy in early-stage cervical cancer patients with intermediate-risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of intermediate risk factors reduces the predictability of radical hysterectomy, demanding the use of adjuvant therapy for treatment of Early stage cervical cancer (ESCC) patients. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) and chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has been widely used with varied efficacy and safety issues. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to update the available evidence and assess the effect of post-surgical adjuvant RT versus adjuvant CRT on survival rate and complications/toxicities in management of ESCC patients with intermediate risk factors. PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science (WOS) and CENTRAL were searched using a combination of relevant keywords. All studies comparing outcomes of adjuvant RT versus CRT in ESCC patients with intermediate-risk factors in terms of recurrence free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicities/complications were included. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis was carried out. The risk of bias assessment was done using Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for retrospective cohort studies and Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used for randomized clinical trials. Eleven retrospective cohort studies and two randomized clinical trials were included in this review. Adjuvant CRT was found to have better RFS with ESCC patients with multiple intermediate risk factors with OR 3.11 95% CI [1.04, 4.99], p < 0.0001; i2 = 6%. However, similar benefit was observed between both regimens in presence of a single intermediate risk factor OR 1.80 95% CI [0.96, 3.36], p = 0.07; i2 = 0%. Grade 3 or 4 haematological toxicity among patients receiving post-surgical adjuvant RT versus adjuvant CRT showed increased association of toxicity with adjuvant CRT with OR 7.73 95%CI [3.40, 17.59], p < 0.0001; i2 = 62%. Adjuvant CRT shows favourable RFS and OS in ESCC patients with multiple intermediate risk factors. CRT also showed greater incidence of grade 3 or 4 haematological and non-haematiological toxicity, however, the same could be well tolerated when used within the recommended dosage.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".