Evidence Hub

Predictive factors for toxicity after primary chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review

A. Corbeau, W. Heemsbergen, S. Kuipers, J. Godart, C. Creutzberg, R. Nout, S. D. de Boer

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2023

14 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

Women with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) undergoing primary platinum-based chemoradiotherapy and brachytherapy often experience toxicities. Normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP) models quantify toxicity risk and aid in optimizing radiotherapy to minimize side effects. However, it is unclear which predictors to include in an NTCP model. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the identified predictors contributing to gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU), and vaginal toxicities and insufficiency fractures for LACC.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A systematic search was performed and articles evaluating the relationship between predictors and toxicities in women with LACC treated with primary chemoradiation were included. The Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool was used to assess risk of bias, with high-risk studies being excluded from further analysis. Relationships between dose-volume parameters, patient and treatment characteristics and toxicity endpoints were analyzed.

RESULTS

73 studies were identified. 26 had a low or moderate risk of bias and were therefore included. Brachytherapy-related dose-volume parameters of the GI tract, including rectum and bowel EQD2 D2cm3, were frequently related to toxicities, unlike GU dose-volume parameters. Furthermore, (recto)vaginal point doses predicted toxicities. Few studies evaluated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) dose-volume parameters and identified rectum EQD2 V30Gy,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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.

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