International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2026
Application of small-pelvic adjuvant radiotherapy in early cervical cancer without high-risk factors after hysterectomy.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Chen Yi-Ning, Yang Xi-Lin, Zhu Jia-Wei, Zhou Yun-Can, Guan Hui, Miao Zheng, Peng Peng, Yan Jun-Fang, Cui Di, Zhang Fu-Quan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of adjuvant small-pelvic radiotherapy in early-stage cervical cancer patients without high-risk factors following radical hysterectomy.
METHODS: Patients were assigned to small pelvic (excluding common iliac nodes) or whole-pelvic radiotherapy groups. Survival was compared before and after propensity score matching. Recursive partitioning analysis was used to construct risk stratification, and sub-group survival was analyzed. Organs-at-risk dosimetry and treatment-related adverse events were also compared.
RESULTS: Prior to propensity score matching analysis, whole-pelvic radiotherapy yielded significantly better 5-year disease-free survival than small-pelvic radiotherapy (93.0% vs 86.8%, p = .038), whereas this survival advantage disappeared after propensity score matching adjustment (90.8% vs 87.0%, p = .2). No significant difference in 5-year locoregional control was observed between the two groups after propensity score matching. Three independent risk sub-groups were identified via recursive partitioning analysis. In the high-risk sub-group defined by tumor diameter ≥3.2 cm, whole-pelvic radiotherapy achieved superior survival benefits relative to small-pelvic radiotherapy, with significantly higher 5-year overall survival (96.7% vs 77.1%, p = .022) and disease-free survival (96.7% vs 70.8%, p = .006). Significant inter-group differences were detected in dosimetric metrics of the bone marrow and small intestine, while no obvious difference was found in rectal dosimetry. A borderline significant difference was noted in grade 1-2 gastrointestinal adverse events, with a higher incidence in the whole-pelvic group (26.0% vs 13.7%, p = .06).
CONCLUSIONS: Small-pelvic radiotherapy may be less suitable for patients with tumor diameter ≥3.2 cm, while it may reduce mild gastrointestinal toxicities.
METHODS: Patients were assigned to small pelvic (excluding common iliac nodes) or whole-pelvic radiotherapy groups. Survival was compared before and after propensity score matching. Recursive partitioning analysis was used to construct risk stratification, and sub-group survival was analyzed. Organs-at-risk dosimetry and treatment-related adverse events were also compared.
RESULTS: Prior to propensity score matching analysis, whole-pelvic radiotherapy yielded significantly better 5-year disease-free survival than small-pelvic radiotherapy (93.0% vs 86.8%, p = .038), whereas this survival advantage disappeared after propensity score matching adjustment (90.8% vs 87.0%, p = .2). No significant difference in 5-year locoregional control was observed between the two groups after propensity score matching. Three independent risk sub-groups were identified via recursive partitioning analysis. In the high-risk sub-group defined by tumor diameter ≥3.2 cm, whole-pelvic radiotherapy achieved superior survival benefits relative to small-pelvic radiotherapy, with significantly higher 5-year overall survival (96.7% vs 77.1%, p = .022) and disease-free survival (96.7% vs 70.8%, p = .006). Significant inter-group differences were detected in dosimetric metrics of the bone marrow and small intestine, while no obvious difference was found in rectal dosimetry. A borderline significant difference was noted in grade 1-2 gastrointestinal adverse events, with a higher incidence in the whole-pelvic group (26.0% vs 13.7%, p = .06).
CONCLUSIONS: Small-pelvic radiotherapy may be less suitable for patients with tumor diameter ≥3.2 cm, while it may reduce mild gastrointestinal toxicities.