Cochrane · systematic review · CD012301
Extended‐field radiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer
Thamronganantasakul, K, Supakalin, N, Kietpeerakool, C, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan CancerAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
14
current version
GRADE rated
14
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 5 · 35.7%Low 1 · 7.1%Moderate 8 · 57.1%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Extended‐field radiotherapy compared to pelvic radiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overall survival Extended‐field radiotherapy vs pelvic radiotherapy | HR 0.67 [0.48, 0.94] | 1 study · 337 participants | Moderate |
Para‐aortic lymph node recurrence Extended‐field radiotherapy vs pelvic radiotherapy | RR 0.36 [0.18, 0.7] | 2 studies · 477 participants | Moderate |
Progression‐free survival Extended‐field radiotherapy vs pelvic radiotherapy | HR 0.92 [0.69, 1.22] | 1 study · 377 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events Extended‐field radiotherapy vs pelvic radiotherapy | RR 1.05 [0.79, 1.41] | 2 studies · 776 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Extended‐field radiotherapy compared to pelvic chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overall survival Extended‐field radiotherapy vs pelvic chemoradiotherapy | HR 0.5 [0.39, 0.64] | 1 study · 389 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Para‐aortic lymph node recurrence Extended‐field radiotherapy vs pelvic chemoradiotherapy | RR 0.44 [0.2, 0.99] | 1 study · 389 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Progression‐free survival Extended‐field radiotherapy vs pelvic chemoradiotherapy | HR 0.52 [0.37, 0.72] | 1 study · 389 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Acute adverse events Extended‐field radiotherapy vs pelvic chemoradiotherapy | RR 0.05 [0.02, 0.11] | 1 study · 388 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Late adverse events Extended‐field radiotherapy vs pelvic chemoradiotherapy | RR 1.06 [0.69, 1.62] | 1 study · 386 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Extended‐field chemoradiotherapy compared to pelvic chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overall survival Extended‐field chemoradiotherapy vs pelvic chemoradiotherapy | HR 0.37 [0.14, 0.96] | 1 study · 74 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Para‐aortic lymph node recurrence Extended‐field chemoradiotherapy vs pelvic chemoradiotherapy | RR 0.19 [0.02, 1.54] | 1 study · 74 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Progression‐free survival Extended‐field chemoradiotherapy vs pelvic chemoradiotherapy | HR 0.25 [0.07, 0.87] | 1 study · 74 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Acute adverse events Extended‐field chemoradiotherapy vs pelvic chemoradiotherapy | RR 0.95 [0.2, 4.39] | 1 study · 74 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Late adverse events Extended‐field chemoradiotherapy vs pelvic chemoradiotherapy | RR 0.95 [0.06, 14.59] | 1 study · 74 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |