Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal brachytherapy versus combined pelvic external beam radiotherapy and vaginal brachytherapy in managing intermediate to high-risk endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Sibarani Candra Novi Ricardo, Salima Siti, Adrianto Nicholas
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This review assesses the efficacy and safety of EBRT + VBT versus VBT alone in intermediate- to high-risk endometrial cancer.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, ProQuest, Ovid, and Scopus (until February 18, 2025). Studies comparing EBRT + VBT to VBT alone were included. The primary outcome was pelvic recurrence rate, while secondary outcomes included distant recurrence, overall survival, and toxicity. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment (RoB-2, ROBINS-I), and meta-analysis (random-effects models in RevMan) were performed. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. PROSPERO registration: CRD420250654411.
RESULTS: Eight studies comprising 2,672 patients met inclusion criteria (1,347 received EBRT + VBT; 1,325 had VBT alone). EBRT + VBT significantly reduced pelvic recurrence (OR 0.14, p = 0.001) but showed no difference in vaginal recurrence (OR 0.25, p = 0.14), distant metastasis (OR 0.78, p = 0.45) or overall survival (HR 0.82, p = 0.29, I2 = 72%). EBRT + VBT was associated with higher gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and hematologic toxicity.
CONCLUSION: EBRT + VBT improves pelvic control but does not enhance survival and increases toxicity. VBT alone remains a viable option, highlighting the need for individualized treatment strategies.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, ProQuest, Ovid, and Scopus (until February 18, 2025). Studies comparing EBRT + VBT to VBT alone were included. The primary outcome was pelvic recurrence rate, while secondary outcomes included distant recurrence, overall survival, and toxicity. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment (RoB-2, ROBINS-I), and meta-analysis (random-effects models in RevMan) were performed. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. PROSPERO registration: CRD420250654411.
RESULTS: Eight studies comprising 2,672 patients met inclusion criteria (1,347 received EBRT + VBT; 1,325 had VBT alone). EBRT + VBT significantly reduced pelvic recurrence (OR 0.14, p = 0.001) but showed no difference in vaginal recurrence (OR 0.25, p = 0.14), distant metastasis (OR 0.78, p = 0.45) or overall survival (HR 0.82, p = 0.29, I2 = 72%). EBRT + VBT was associated with higher gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and hematologic toxicity.
CONCLUSION: EBRT + VBT improves pelvic control but does not enhance survival and increases toxicity. VBT alone remains a viable option, highlighting the need for individualized treatment strategies.