A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: Neoadjuvant Treatment versus Standard Radio-Chemotherapy-An Updated Meta-Analysis. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: The treatment of choice for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is definitive concurrent radio chemotherapy which consists of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy (CCRT), with the possible addition of brachytherapy (BT). However, the benefits of adjuvant surgery after neoadjuvant treatments remain a debated issue and a still open question in the literature. This meta-analysis aims to provide an updated view on the controversial topic, focusing on comparing surgery after any adjuvant treatment and standard treatment.

Methods: Following the recommendations in the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, the PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched in April 2023 for early publications. No limitations on the country were applied. Only English articles were considered. The comparative studies containing data about disease-free survival (DFS) and/or overall survival (OS) were included in the meta-analysis.

Results: The CCRT + surgery group showed a significantly better DFS than CCRT (RR 0.69 [95% CI 0.58-0.81] < 0.01) and a better OS (RR 0.70 [95% CI 0.55-0.89] < 0.01). Nine studies comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) plus surgery and CCRT were also enrolled. The NACT + surgery group showed a significantly better DFS than CCRT (RR 0.66 [95% CI 0.45-0.97] < 0.01) and a better OS (RR 0.56 [95% CI 0.38-0.83] < 0.01). In the sub-analysis of three randomized control trials, the surgery group documented a non-significantly better DFS and OS than CCRT (OR 1.10 [95% CI 0.67-1.80] = 0.72; I = 69% = 0.72; OR 1.09 [95% CI 0.63-1.91] = 0.75; I = 13% = 0.32).

Conclusion: The results provide updated findings about the efficacy of neoadjuvant treatments, indicating significantly improved DFS and OS in patients undergoing hysterectomy after CCRT or NACT compared with patients undergoing standard treatments.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11275180PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers16142542DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

surgery group
12
better dfs
12
dfs ccrt
12
locally advanced
8
advanced cervical
8
cervical cancer
8
neoadjuvant treatments
8
provide updated
8
group better
8
001 better
8

Similar Publications