-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022This is an update of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2015. Cervical cancer is one of the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2015. Cervical cancer is one of the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Many new cervical cancer cases in low-income countries present at an advanced stage. Standard care in Europe and the US for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is chemoradiotherapy. In low-income countries, with limited access to radiotherapy, LACC may be treated with chemotherapy and hysterectomy. It is not certain if this improves survival. It is important to assess the value of hysterectomy with radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, as an alternative.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether hysterectomy, in addition to standard treatment with radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, in women with LACC (Stage IB to III) is safe and effective compared with standard treatment alone.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, LILACS, trial registries and the grey literature up to 3 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatments involving hysterectomy versus radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, in women with LACC International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stages IB to III.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) or disease-free (DFS) survival in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Adverse events (AEs) were incompletely reported and we described the results of single trials in narrative form. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
From the searches we identified 968 studies. After deduplication, title and abstract screening, and full-text assessment, we included 11 RCTs (2683 women) of varying methodological quality. This update identified four new RCTs and three ongoing RCTs. The included studies compared: hysterectomy (simple or radical) with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus radiotherapy alone or chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) alone or CCRT and brachytherapy. There is also one ongoing study comparing three groups: hysterectomy with CCRT versus hysterectomy with NACT versus CCRT. There were two comparison groups for which we were able to do a meta-analysis. Hysterectomy (radical) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone Two RCTs with similar design characteristics (620 and 633 participants) found no difference in five-year OS between NACT with hysterectomy versus CCRT. Meta-analysis assessing 1253 participants found no evidence of a difference in risk of death (OS) between women who received NACT plus hysterectomy and those who received CCRT alone (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.16; moderate-certainty evidence). In both studies, the five-year DFS in the NACT plus surgery group was worse (57%) compared with the CCRT group (65.6%), mostly for Stage IIB. Results of single trials reported no apparent difference in long-term severe complications, grade 3 acute toxicity and severe late toxicity between groups (very low-quality evidence). Hysterectomy (simple or radical) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus radiotherapy alone Meta-analysis of three trials of NACT with hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone, assessing 571 participants, found that women who received NACT plus hysterectomy had less risk of death (OS) than those who received radiotherapy alone (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; I = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). However, a significant number of participants who received NACT plus hysterectomy also had radiotherapy. There was no difference in the proportion of women with disease progression or recurrence (DFS and PFS) between NACT plus hysterectomy and radiotherapy groups (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.05; I = 20%; moderate-quality evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low or very-low for all other comparisons for all outcomes. None of the trials reported quality of life outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
From the available RCTs, we found insufficient evidence that hysterectomy with radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, improves the survival of women with LACC who are treated with radiotherapy or CCRT alone. The overall certainty of the evidence was variable across the different outcomes and was universally downgraded due to concerns about risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence for NACT and radical hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone for survival outcomes was moderate. The same occurred for the comparison involving NACT and hysterectomy compared with CCRT alone. Evidence from other comparisons was generally sparse and of low or very low-certainty. This was mainly based on poor reporting and sparseness of data where results were based on single trials. More trials assessing medical management with and without hysterectomy may test the robustness of the findings of this review as further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Topics: Chemoradiotherapy; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 35994243
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010260.pub3 -
The Lancet. Oncology Aug 2022The trade-off between comparative effectiveness and reproductive morbidity of different treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) remains unclear.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative effectiveness and risk of preterm birth of local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and stage IA1 cervical cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The trade-off between comparative effectiveness and reproductive morbidity of different treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) remains unclear. We aimed to determine the risks of treatment failure and preterm birth associated with various treatment techniques.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database for randomised and non-randomised studies reporting on oncological or reproductive outcomes after CIN treatments from database inception until March 9, 2022, without language restrictions. We included studies of women with CIN, glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, or stage IA1 cervical cancer treated with excision (cold knife conisation [CKC], laser conisation, and large loop excision of the transformation zone [LLETZ]) or ablation (radical diathermy, laser ablation, cold coagulation, and cryotherapy). We excluded women treated with hysterectomy. The primary outcomes were any treatment failure (defined as any abnormal histology or cytology) and preterm birth (<37 weeks of gestation). The network for preterm birth also included women with untreated CIN (untreated colposcopy group). The main reference group was LLETZ for treatment failure and the untreated colposcopy group for preterm birth. For randomised controlled trials, we extracted group-level summary data, and for observational studies, we extracted relative treatment effect estimates adjusted for potential confounders, when available, and we did random-effects network meta-analyses to obtain odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed within-study and across-study risk of bias using Cochrane tools. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018115495 and CRD42018115508.
FINDINGS
7880 potential citations were identified for the outcome of treatment failure and 4107 for the outcome of preterm birth. After screening and removal of duplicates, the network for treatment failure included 19 240 participants across 71 studies (25 randomised) and the network for preterm birth included 68 817 participants across 29 studies (two randomised). Compared with LLETZ, risk of treatment failure was reduced for other excisional methods (laser conisation: OR 0·59 [95% CI 0·44-0·79] and CKC: 0·63 [0·50-0·81]) and increased for laser ablation (1·69 [1·27-2·24]) and cryotherapy (1·84 [1·33-2·56]). No differences were found for the comparison of cold coagulation versus LLETZ (1·09 [0·68-1·74]) but direct data were based on two small studies only. Compared with the untreated colposcopy group, risk of preterm birth was increased for all excisional techniques (CKC: 2·27 [1·70-3·02]; laser conisation: 1·77 [1·29-2·43]; and LLETZ: 1·37 [1·16-1·62]), whereas no differences were found for ablative methods (laser ablation: 1·05 [0·78-1·41]; cryotherapy: 1·01 [0·35-2·92]; and cold coagulation: 0·67 [0·02-29·15]). The evidence was based mostly on observational studies with their inherent risks of bias, and the credibility of many comparisons was low.
INTERPRETATION
More radical excisional techniques reduce the risk of treatment failure but increase the risk of subsequent preterm birth. Although there is uncertainty, ablative treatments probably do not increase risk of preterm birth, but are associated with higher failure rates than excisional techniques. Although we found LLETZ to have balanced effectiveness and reproductive morbidity, treatment choice should rely on a woman's age, size and location of lesion, and future family planning.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health and Care Research: Research for Patient Benefit.
Topics: Conization; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Network Meta-Analysis; Premature Birth; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 35835138
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00334-5 -
Gynecologic Oncology Jul 2022Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery has been debated after the publication of a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC trial). It demonstrated poorer oncological outcomes for Minimal Invasive Surgery in ECC. However, the reasons are still an open debate. Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVRH) seems to be a logical option to Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy (ARH). This meta-analysis has the aim to prove it.
METHODS
Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Pubmed database and Scopus database were systematically searched in January 2022 since early first publications. No limitation of the country was made. Only English article were considered. The studies containing data about Disease-free Survival (DFS) and/or Overall Survival (OS) and/or Recurrence Rate (RcR) were included.
RESULTS
19 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 9 comparative studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. Patients were analyzed concerning surgical approach (Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Radical Hysterectomy) and compared with ARH Oncological outcomes such as DFS and OS were considered. 3196 patiets were included for the review. Meta-analysis of 1988 0f them highlighted a non-statistic significant difference between LARVH and ARH (RR 0.8 [95% CI 0.55-1.16] p = 0.24; I = 0%; p = 0.98). OS was feasible only for 4 studies (RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.23-3.02] p = 0.79; I = 0 p = 0.44). Sub-analysis for tumor with a maximum diameter greater than 2 cm was performed. Data about the type of recurrences (loco-regional vs distant) were collected.
CONCLUSION
LARVH does not appear to affect DFS and OS in ECC patients. The proposed results seem to be comparable with the open approach group of the LACC trial, which today represents the reference standard for the treatment of this pathology. More studies will be needed to test the safety and efficacy of LARVH in the ECC.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Laparoscopy; Neoplasm Staging; Retrospective Studies; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 35513934
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.04.010 -
International Journal of Gynaecology... Jan 2023To evaluate the efficacy and safety of five different approaches to cervical cancer surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of five different approaches to cervical cancer surgery.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search for comparative studies on different radical hysterectomy types for cervical cancer in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. All included observational studies used survival analyses to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing different radical hysterectomy types. All studies were assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale with scores of at least seven points. We extracted the relevant data and conducted a network meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes among five surgical approaches.
RESULTS
Thirty studies (n = 11 353) were included. Robotic surgery had the lowest blood loss volume and hospitalization duration; open surgery had the shortest operative time. Vaginal assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with the highest number of resected lymph nodes and lowest rate of perioperative complications. Survival outcomes and tumor recurrence outcomes were similar among the approaches.
CONCLUSION
The current approaches to cervical cancer surgery have comparable efficacies.
Topics: Female; Humans; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Hysterectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Laparoscopy; Neoplasm Staging
PubMed: 35373333
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14209 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022To compare cervical cancer recurrence and patient survival after radical hysterectomy followed by either adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) or adjuvant radiotherapy with or...
Cervical Cancer Recurrence and Patient Survival After Radical Hysterectomy Followed by Either Adjuvant Chemotherapy or Adjuvant Radiotherapy With Optional Concurrent Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare cervical cancer recurrence and patient survival after radical hysterectomy followed by either adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) or adjuvant radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy (AR/CCRT).
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov to identify studies reporting recurrence or survival of cervical cancer patients who received AC or AR/CCRT after radical hysterectomy. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was evaluated using the test. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 14 non-randomized studies and two randomized controlled trials, altogether involving 5,052 cervical cancer patients. AC and AR/CCRT groups did not differ significantly in rates of total or local recurrence or mortality. Nevertheless, AC was associated with significantly lower risk of distant recurrence [odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.81] and higher rates of overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.85] and disease-free survival rate (HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.62-0.92).
CONCLUSIONS
AC may be an effective alternative to AR/CCRT for cervical cancer patients after radical hysterectomy, especially younger women who wish to preserve their ovaries and protect them from radiation damage.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021252518).
PubMed: 35311123
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.823064 -
Gynecologic Oncology Apr 2022Several techniques can be proposed as fertility sparing surgery in young patients treated for cervical cancer but uncertaincies remain concerning their outcomes.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Several techniques can be proposed as fertility sparing surgery in young patients treated for cervical cancer but uncertaincies remain concerning their outcomes. Analysis of oncological issues is then the first aim of this review in order to evaluate the best strategy.
RESULTS
Data were identified from searches of MEDLINE, Current Contents, PubMed and from references in relevant articles from January 1987 to 15th of September 2021. We carry out an updated systematic review involving 5862 patients initially selected for fertility-sparing surgery in 275 series.
FINDINGS
In patients having a stage IB1 disease, recurrence rate/RR in patients undergoing simple conisation/trachelectomy, radical trachelectomy/RT by laparoscopico-vaginal approach, laparotomic or laparoscopic approaches are respectively: 4.1%, 4.7%, 2.4% and 5.2%. In patients having a stage IB2 disease, RR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or RT by laparotomy are respectively 13.2% and 4.8% (p = .0035). After neoadjuvant treatment a simple cone/trachelectomy was carried out in 91 (30%) patients and a radical one in 210 (70%) cases. But the lowest pregnancy rate is observed in patients undergoing RT by laparotomy (36%).
CONCLUSIONS
The choice between these treatments should be based above all, on objective oncological data that strike a balance for each procedure between the best chances for cure and the fertility results. In patients having a stage IB1 disease, oncological results are quite similar according to the procedure used. In patients having a stage IB2 disease, RT by open approach has the lowest RR. Anyway the lowest pregnancy rate is observed in patients undergoing RT by laparotomy.
Topics: Female; Fertility Preservation; Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Staging; Pregnancy; Trachelectomy; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 35241291
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.01.023 -
International Journal of Gynecological... Apr 2022The objective of this systematic review was to assess the oncologic and fertility outcomes of patients with cervix-confined cancer >4 cm who underwent neo-adjuvant...
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this systematic review was to assess the oncologic and fertility outcomes of patients with cervix-confined cancer >4 cm who underwent neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by fertility-sparing surgery.
METHODS
This study was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42021254816). PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, and OVID databases were searched from inception to July 2021. The included patients were those with cancer confined to the cervix and tumor diameter >4 cm (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 stage IB3) with squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma who underwent intra-venous neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by successful fertility-sparing surgery.
RESULTS
The initial search identified 2990 articles. A total of 40 patients from 11 studies had attempted fertility preservation surgery (conization, simple or radical trachelectomy) and in 26 patients (65%) it was successful. All patients received platinum-based chemotherapy. A complete pathological response occurred in 56% of patients and two patients (7.7%) had a recurrence. The 4.5-year disease-free survival was 92.3% and the 4.5-year overall survival rate was 100%. Of six patients who tried to conceive, four (67%) achieved at least one pregnancy and three of the five pregnancies (60%) were pre-term deliveries (all after radical trachelectomy). All patients with recurrence received cisplatin and ifosfamide instead of cisplatin and paclitaxel, underwent non-radical surgery, and had residual disease in the final specimen.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence for fertility-sparing surgery after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with cervical cancer and tumors >4 cm is limited, and this approach should be considered as an experimental intervention. As the use of non-radical surgery could be a risk factor, if neo-adjuvant chemotherapy is used, patients should undergo fertility-sparing radical surgery.
Topics: Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Fertility Preservation; Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Staging; Pregnancy; Trachelectomy; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 35210296
DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-003297 -
Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics &... Jan 2022The presence of intermediate risk factors reduces the predictability of radical hysterectomy, demanding the use of adjuvant therapy for treatment of Early stage cervical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy in early-stage cervical cancer patients with intermediate-risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
Topics: Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Chemoradiotherapy; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Neoplasm Staging; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Survival Rate; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 35181028
DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2021.11.006 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was commonly used to treat patients with early-stage cervical cancer, its efficacy remained controversial.
BACKGROUND
Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was commonly used to treat patients with early-stage cervical cancer, its efficacy remained controversial.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until March 2021 to compare the prognosis of early-stage cervical cancer patients who underwent MIS (laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical hysterectomy) or ARH. The primary outcomes included rates of 3- and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021258116.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 48 studies involving 23346 patients (11220, MIS group; 12126, ARH group). The MIS group had a poorer medium-term (3-year) DFS (HR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.01-1.16, =0.031) than the ARH group, without significant difference in medium-term OS as well as long-term (5-year) DFS and OS. Subgroup analysis of 3-year prognosis revealed that although patients in Western countries who underwent MIS had shorter DFS than those who underwent ARH (HR=1.10, =0.024), no difference was observed in DFS among those in Asian countries. Moreover, MIS was linked to poorer 3-year DFS in patients with stage I cervical cancer (HR=1.07, =0.020). Notably, subgroup analysis of 5-year prognosis revealed that patients with tumor size ≥2 cm undergoing MIS exhibited a shorter DFS than those who underwent ARH (HR=1.65, =0.041).
CONCLUSION
Patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing MIS may have a poorer prognosis than those undergoing ARH. Therefore, applying MIS in early-stage cervical cancer patients should be conducted with caution.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021258116.
PubMed: 35141141
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.762921 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2021To provide updated evidence on comparative efficacy for clinical outcomes of radical trachelectomy and radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical...
To provide updated evidence on comparative efficacy for clinical outcomes of radical trachelectomy and radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google scholar databases. Studies were done in patients with early-stage cervical cancer that compared the outcomes between radical trachelectomy (RT) and hysterectomy (RH) were considered for inclusion in the review. The outcomes of interest were operative time, the volume of blood loss, need for blood transfusion, any complications, length of hospital stay, risk of recurrence, and survival. The strength of association was presented in the form of pooled relative risk (RR), hazards risk (HR), and weighted mean difference (WMD). Statistical analysis was done using STATA version 16.0. A total of 12 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The majority were retrospective cohort-based studies. Compared to RH, the operative time (in min) was comparatively higher in RT (WMD 23.43, 95% CI: 5.63, 41.24). Patients undergoing RT had blood loss (in ml) similar to those undergoing RT (WMD -81.34, 95% CI: -170.36, 7.68). There were no significant differences in the risk of intra-operative (RR 1.61, 95% CI: 0.49, 5.28) and post-operative complications (RR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.54, 2.40) between the two groups. Patients in the RT group had lesser duration of post-operative hospital stay (in days) (WMD -1.65, 95% CI: -3.22, -0.09). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of recurrence (HR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.68, 2.18), 5-year overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.02), and recurrence-free survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.96, 1.01) between the two groups. Among the patients with early-stage cervical cancer, RT is similar to RH in safety and clinical outcomes. Future studies with a randomized design and larger sample sizes are needed to further substantiate these findings.
PubMed: 34859038
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.735944