International journal of clinical oncology · 2026
Evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: a single-center study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Yamamura Akitoshi, Ukita Masayo, Takemura Hiromi, Ishibashi Tetsuya, Nakanishi Hinako, Kita Mariko, Sakamoto Takaya, Toda Airi, Yoshida Teruki, Takahashi Sayuri, Kanbayashi Shota, Tani Hirohiko, Kosaka Kenzo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) before radical hysterectomy (RH) in cervical cancer remains unclear. We evaluated stage-specific outcomes of NACT-RH at a high-volume center.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with non-metastatic cT1b1-2b cervical cancer who underwent RH between 2013 and 2022. For cT1b cases, prognostic outcomes were compared between patients with cT1b3 (any N) who underwent NACT-RH (High-risk, NACT(+)) and those with cT1b1-1b2 N0 who underwent primary RH (Low-risk, NACT(-)), using propensity score matching. For cT2 cases, NACT-RH versus primary RH was compared using inverse probability weighting to adjust for baseline differences.
RESULTS: Among 191 patients who underwent RH (cT1: n = 99; cT2: n = 92), the matched cT1 cohort comprised 15 High-risk, NACT(+) and 30 Low-risk, NACT(-) patients. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 75.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.4-100.0%) versus 89.9% (95% CI, 79.6-100.0%) (p = 0.427). Overall survival (OS) was 100% in both groups with a median follow-up of > 70 months. In cT2, NACT-RH (n = 73) versus primary RH (n = 19) showed hazard ratios of 2.88 for PFS (95% CI, 0.69-11.97) and 5.64 for OS (95% CI, 0.70-45.35) after baseline adjustment. Among cT2 patients who underwent NACT-RH, PFS and OS were worse in those without an objective response to NACT (n = 18, all cT2b) than in responders.
CONCLUSION: NACT-RH was associated with encouraging long-term outcomes in cT1b3, whereas outcomes in cT2 cases remain uncertain, supporting careful selection and response-adapted strategies.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with non-metastatic cT1b1-2b cervical cancer who underwent RH between 2013 and 2022. For cT1b cases, prognostic outcomes were compared between patients with cT1b3 (any N) who underwent NACT-RH (High-risk, NACT(+)) and those with cT1b1-1b2 N0 who underwent primary RH (Low-risk, NACT(-)), using propensity score matching. For cT2 cases, NACT-RH versus primary RH was compared using inverse probability weighting to adjust for baseline differences.
RESULTS: Among 191 patients who underwent RH (cT1: n = 99; cT2: n = 92), the matched cT1 cohort comprised 15 High-risk, NACT(+) and 30 Low-risk, NACT(-) patients. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 75.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.4-100.0%) versus 89.9% (95% CI, 79.6-100.0%) (p = 0.427). Overall survival (OS) was 100% in both groups with a median follow-up of > 70 months. In cT2, NACT-RH (n = 73) versus primary RH (n = 19) showed hazard ratios of 2.88 for PFS (95% CI, 0.69-11.97) and 5.64 for OS (95% CI, 0.70-45.35) after baseline adjustment. Among cT2 patients who underwent NACT-RH, PFS and OS were worse in those without an objective response to NACT (n = 18, all cT2b) than in responders.
CONCLUSION: NACT-RH was associated with encouraging long-term outcomes in cT1b3, whereas outcomes in cT2 cases remain uncertain, supporting careful selection and response-adapted strategies.