Evidence Hub

Efficacy and Safety Evaluation of the Various Therapeutic Options in Locally Advanced Cervix Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

N. Datta, E. Stutz, S. Gómez, S. Bodis

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2019

9,894 participants · 57 citations

Abstract

Treatment options in locally advanced cervix cancer (LACC) have evolved around radiation therapy (RT) and/or chemotherapy (CT), hypoxic cell sensitizers, immunomodulators (Imm), and locoregional moderate hyperthermia (HT). A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the evidence for efficacy and safety in terms of long-term locoregional control (LRC), overall survival (OS), and grade ≥3 acute morbidity (AM) and late morbidity (LM). Five databases were searched, and 6285 articles (1974-2018) were screened per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. Fifty-nine randomized trials in untreated LACC without surgical intervention were shortlisted. These used 13 different interventions: RT alone and/or neoadjuvant CT (NACT), adjuvant CT (ACT), concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CTRT) (weekly cisplatin [CDDP]/3-weekly CDDP/combination CT with CDDP/non-CDDP-based CT), hypoxic cell sensitizers, Imm, or HT. Odds ratios (ORs) using random effects network meta-analysis were estimated. Interventions for each endpoint were ranked according to their corresponding surface under cumulative ranking curve values. Of the 9894 patients evaluated, the total events reported for LRC, OS, AM, and LM were 5431 of 8197, 4482 of 7958, 1710 of 7183, and 441 of 6333, respectively. ORs and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for the 2 best strategies were HT + RT versus CTRT + ACT (OR, 1.23; 95% CrI, 0.49-3.19) for LRC, CTRT (3-weekly CDDP)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 9,894 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free