International journal of clinical oncology · 2026
Optimal adjuvant strategy in intermediate-risk cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yokoi Akira, Machida Hiroko, Okazawa-Sakai Mika, Nishino Koji, Nishino Hanae, Itoi Mizue, Mitamura Takumi, Isohashi Fumiaki, Tsuchida Keisuke, Saji Haruya, Fujiwara Satoe, Ii Noriko, Watanabe Miho, Nishikawa Tadaaki, Nakagawa Satoshi, Kodama Michiko, Sato Shinya, Takehara Kazuhiro, Morisada Tohru, Noda Shin-Ei, Takekuma Munetaka, Kajiyama Hiroaki, Tokunaga Hideki, Baba Tsukasa, Kobayashi Yoichi, Okamoto Aikou
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant treatment strategies following radical hysterectomy for intermediate-risk, early-stage cervical cancer using a reconstructed HR Hazard ratio (HR) meta-analysis.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology Cervical Cancer Committee. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Ichushi were searched on July 29, 2025, using "cervical cancer," "intermediate-risk," and "adjuvant therapy." Studies comparing adjuvant radiotherapy alone (RT) with no further treatment (NFT), concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), or systemic chemotherapy (CT) after conventional radical hysterectomy were independently reviewed by two reviewers. Primary outcomes were survival and grade ≥ 3 treatment-related toxicities.
RESULTS: Of 402 screened articles, 24 studies comprising 9278 patients were included: RT (n = 4167), NFT (n = 2057), CCRT (n = 2118), and CT (n = 936). The majority of studies enrolled patients with ≥ 2 Sedlis risk factors (median 84.2%, interquartile range 44.7-100%). Compared with NFT, RT significantly improved recurrence-free survival (HR 0.61, P < 0.01) but did not confer a significant overall survival benefit (HR 0.77, P = 0.09). RT also reduced recurrence in patients with a single risk factor (HR 0.55, P < 0.01). RT showed no survival disadvantage compared with CCRT (recurrence-free survival: HR 1.26; overall survival: HR 1.07), and survival outcomes were comparable between RT and CT (recurrence-free survival: HR 0.86; overall survival: HR 1.16) (all P > 0.05). Grade ≥ 3 toxicities were significantly lower with RT than with CCRT (odds ratio 0.25; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Adjuvant RT represents an effective and well-tolerated postoperative strategy for intermediate-risk, early-stage cervical cancer. Adjuvant CT may represent a potential alternative option.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology Cervical Cancer Committee. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Ichushi were searched on July 29, 2025, using "cervical cancer," "intermediate-risk," and "adjuvant therapy." Studies comparing adjuvant radiotherapy alone (RT) with no further treatment (NFT), concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), or systemic chemotherapy (CT) after conventional radical hysterectomy were independently reviewed by two reviewers. Primary outcomes were survival and grade ≥ 3 treatment-related toxicities.
RESULTS: Of 402 screened articles, 24 studies comprising 9278 patients were included: RT (n = 4167), NFT (n = 2057), CCRT (n = 2118), and CT (n = 936). The majority of studies enrolled patients with ≥ 2 Sedlis risk factors (median 84.2%, interquartile range 44.7-100%). Compared with NFT, RT significantly improved recurrence-free survival (HR 0.61, P < 0.01) but did not confer a significant overall survival benefit (HR 0.77, P = 0.09). RT also reduced recurrence in patients with a single risk factor (HR 0.55, P < 0.01). RT showed no survival disadvantage compared with CCRT (recurrence-free survival: HR 1.26; overall survival: HR 1.07), and survival outcomes were comparable between RT and CT (recurrence-free survival: HR 0.86; overall survival: HR 1.16) (all P > 0.05). Grade ≥ 3 toxicities were significantly lower with RT than with CCRT (odds ratio 0.25; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Adjuvant RT represents an effective and well-tolerated postoperative strategy for intermediate-risk, early-stage cervical cancer. Adjuvant CT may represent a potential alternative option.