Comparison between adjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy after radical surgery in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis

Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2018³â 29±Ç 4È£ p.62 ~ p.62

À̱¤¹ü(Lee Kwang-Beom) - Gachon University College of Medicine Gachon University Gil Medical Center Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
½É½ÂÇõ(Shim Seung-Hyuk) - Konkuk University School of Medicine Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
ÀÌÁ¾¹Î(Lee Jong-Min) - Kyung Hee University School of Medicine Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) on the prognosis in cervical cancer patients with intermediate- or high-risk factors after radical hysterectomy (RH) compared to that for adjuvant radiotherapy (AR).

Methods: The Embase and MEDLINE databases and the Cochrane Library were searched for published studies comparing cervical cancer patients who received AC with those who received AR after RH. The endpoints were patient oncologic outcome. Random-effects meta-analytical models were used to calculate the pooled estimates of the effect of AC on mortality/recurrence.

Results: Two randomized trials and eleven observational studies (AC, 942 patients; AR, 1,721 patients) met our search criteria. There were no significant differences in mortality and any recurrence between two groups. The results for distant recurrence favored the AC group (pooled odds ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.54?0.88; p=0.03). In subgroup analyses (for study design, histology, indication for adjuvant treatment, AR type, AC type, and lymph node metastasis), there was no significant increase in mortality and recurrence for AC compared with that for AR.

Conclusion: Compared to AR, AC showed similar survival outcomes in cervical cancer patients undergoing RH and also appeared to reduce the risk of distant recurrence.

Å°¿öµå

Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Hysterectomy, Drug Therapy, Radiotherapy, Chemoradiotherapy, Meta-Analysis
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
SCI(E) MEDLINE ÇмúÁøÈïÀç´Ü(KCI) KoreaMed ´ëÇÑÀÇÇÐȸ ȸ¿ø 
ÁÖÁ¦ÄÚµå
ÁÖÁ¦¸í(Target field)
¿¬±¸´ë»ó(Population)
¿¬±¸Âü¿©(Sample size)
´ë»ó¼ºº°(Gender)
Áúº´Æ¯¼º(Condition Category)
¿¬±¸È¯°æ(Setting)
¿¬±¸¼³°è(Study Design)
¿¬±¸±â°£(Period)
ÁßÀç¹æ¹ý(Intervention Type)
ÁßÀç¸íĪ(Intervention Name)
Å°¿öµå(Keyword)
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
Compared to AR, AC showed similar survival outcomes in cervical cancer patients undergoing RH and also appeared to reduce the risk of distant recurrence.
¿¬±¸ºñÁö¿ø(Fund Source)
±Ù°Å¼öÁØÆò°¡(Evidence Hierarchy)
ÃâÆdz⵵(Year)
Âü¿©ÀúÀÚ¼ö(Authors)
´ëÇ¥ÀúÀÚ
KCDÄÚµå
ICD 03
°Ç°­º¸ÇèÄÚµå