BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2009. There is an ongoing debate about the indications for, and value of, adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy after radical surgery in women with early cervical cancer. Certain combinations of pathological risk factors are thought to represent sufficient risk for recurrence, that they justify the use of postoperative pelvic radiotherapy, though this has never been shown to improve overall survival, and use of more than one type of treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) increases the risks of side effects and complications. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adjuvant therapies (radiotherapy, chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy, chemoradiation) after radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer (FIGO stages IB1, IB2 or IIA). SEARCH METHODS: For the original review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 4, 2008. The Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, MEDLINE (January 1950 to November 2008), EMBASE (1950 to November 2008). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. For this update, we extended the database searches to September 2011 and searched the MetaRegister for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared adjuvant therapies (radiotherapy, chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy, or chemoradiation) with no radiotherapy or chemoradiation, in women with a confirmed histological diagnosis of early cervical cancer who had undergone radical hysterectomy and dissection of the pelvic lymph nodes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Information on grade 3 and 4 adverse events was collected from the trials. Results were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs, which compared adjuvant radiotherapy with no adjuvant radiotherapy, met the inclusion criteria; they randomised and assessed 397 women with stage IB cervical cancer. Meta-analysis of these two RCTs indicated no significant difference in survival at 5 years between women who received radiation and those who received no further treatment (risk ratio (RR) = 0.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3 to 2.4). However, women who received radiation had a significantly lower risk of disease progression at 5 years (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9).Although the risk of serious adverse events was consistently higher if women received radiotherapy rather than no further treatment, these increased risks were not statistically significant, probably because the rate of adverse events was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence, of moderate quality, that radiation decreases the risk of disease progression compared with no further treatment, but little evidence that it might improve overall survival, in stage IB cervical cancer. The evidence on serious adverse events was equivocal.
BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2009. There is an ongoing debate about the indications for, and value of, adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy after radical surgery in women with early cervical cancer. Certain combinations of pathological risk factors are thought to represent sufficient risk for recurrence, that they justify the use of postoperative pelvic radiotherapy, though this has never been shown to improve overall survival, and use of more than one type of treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) increases the risks of side effects and complications. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adjuvant therapies (radiotherapy, chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy, chemoradiation) after radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer (FIGO stages IB1, IB2 or IIA). SEARCH METHODS: For the original review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 4, 2008. The Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, MEDLINE (January 1950 to November 2008), EMBASE (1950 to November 2008). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. For this update, we extended the database searches to September 2011 and searched the MetaRegister for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared adjuvant therapies (radiotherapy, chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy, or chemoradiation) with no radiotherapy or chemoradiation, in women with a confirmed histological diagnosis of early cervical cancer who had undergone radical hysterectomy and dissection of the pelvic lymph nodes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Information on grade 3 and 4 adverse events was collected from the trials. Results were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs, which compared adjuvant radiotherapy with no adjuvant radiotherapy, met the inclusion criteria; they randomised and assessed 397 women with stage IB cervical cancer. Meta-analysis of these two RCTs indicated no significant difference in survival at 5 years between women who received radiation and those who received no further treatment (risk ratio (RR) = 0.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3 to 2.4). However, women who received radiation had a significantly lower risk of disease progression at 5 years (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9).Although the risk of serious adverse events was consistently higher if women received radiotherapy rather than no further treatment, these increased risks were not statistically significant, probably because the rate of adverse events was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence, of moderate quality, that radiation decreases the risk of disease progression compared with no further treatment, but little evidence that it might improve overall survival, in stage IB cervical cancer. The evidence on serious adverse events was equivocal.
Authors: Marvin Rotman; Alexander Sedlis; Marion R Piedmonte; Brian Bundy; Samuel S Lentz; Laila I Muderspach; Richard J Zaino Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-01-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Matthias W Beckmann; Frederik A Stübs; Martin C Koch; Peter Mallmann; Christian Dannecker; Anna Dietl; Anna Sevnina; Franziska Mergel; Laura Lotz; Carolin C Hack; Anne Ehret; Daniel Gantert; Franca Martignoni; Jan-Philipp Cieslik; Jan Menke; Olaf Ortmann; Carmen Stromberger; Karin Oechsle; Beate Hornemann; Friederike Mumm; Christoph Grimm; Alina Sturdza; Edward Wight; Kristina Loessl; Michael Golatta; Volker Hagen; Timm Dauelsberg; Ingo Diel; Karsten Münstedt; Eberhard Merz; Dirk Vordermark; Katja Lindel; Christian Wittekind; Volkmar Küppers; Ralph Lellé; Klaus Neis; Henrik Griesser; Birgit Pöschel; Manfred Steiner; Ulrich Freitag; Tobias Gilster; Alexander Schmittel; Michael Friedrich; Heidemarie Haase; Marion Gebhardt; Ludwig Kiesel; Michael Reinhardt; Michael Kreißl; Marianne Kloke; Lars-Christian Horn; Regina Wiedemann; Simone Marnitz; Anne Letsch; Isabella Zraik; Bernhard Mangold; Jochen Möckel; Céline Alt; Pauline Wimberger; Peter Hillemanns; Kerstin Paradies; Alexander Mustea; Dominik Denschlag; Ulla Henscher; Reina Tholen; Simone Wesselmann; Tanja Fehm Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Menelaos Tzafetas; Anita Mitra; Maria Paraskevaidi; Zsolt Bodai; Ilkka Kalliala; Sarah Bowden; Konstantinos Lathouras; Francesca Rosini; Marcell Szasz; Adele Savage; Julia Balog; James McKenzie; Deirdre Lyons; Phillip Bennett; David MacIntyre; Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami; Zoltan Takats; Maria Kyrgiou Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 11.205