Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2012 May 16;2012(5):CD007583.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007583.pub3.

Radiotherapy and chemoradiation after surgery for early cervical cancer

Linda Rogers  1 , Shing Shun N Siu, David Luesley, Andrew Bryant, Heather O Dickinson
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Radiotherapy and chemoradiation after surgery for early cervical cancer

Linda Rogers et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2009. There is an ongoing debate about the indications for, and value of, adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy after radical surgery in women with early cervical cancer. Certain combinations of pathological risk factors are thought to represent sufficient risk for recurrence, that they justify the use of postoperative pelvic radiotherapy, though this has never been shown to improve overall survival, and use of more than one type of treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) increases the risks of side effects and complications.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adjuvant therapies (radiotherapy, chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy, chemoradiation) after radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer (FIGO stages IB1, IB2 or IIA).

Search methods: For the original review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 4, 2008. The Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, MEDLINE (January 1950 to November 2008), EMBASE (1950 to November 2008). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. For this update, we extended the database searches to September 2011 and searched the MetaRegister for ongoing trials.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared adjuvant therapies (radiotherapy, chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy, or chemoradiation) with no radiotherapy or chemoradiation, in women with a confirmed histological diagnosis of early cervical cancer who had undergone radical hysterectomy and dissection of the pelvic lymph nodes.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Information on grade 3 and 4 adverse events was collected from the trials. Results were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.

Main results: Two RCTs, which compared adjuvant radiotherapy with no adjuvant radiotherapy, met the inclusion criteria; they randomised and assessed 397 women with stage IB cervical cancer. Meta-analysis of these two RCTs indicated no significant difference in survival at 5 years between women who received radiation and those who received no further treatment (risk ratio (RR) = 0.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3 to 2.4). However, women who received radiation had a significantly lower risk of disease progression at 5 years (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9).Although the risk of serious adverse events was consistently higher if women received radiotherapy rather than no further treatment, these increased risks were not statistically significant, probably because the rate of adverse events was low.

Authors' conclusions: We found evidence, of moderate quality, that radiation decreases the risk of disease progression compared with no further treatment, but little evidence that it might improve overall survival, in stage IB cervical cancer. The evidence on serious adverse events was equivocal.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Figures

1
1
Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
2
2
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Radiotherapy versus no further treatment, Outcome 1 Overall survival (adjusted for prognostic factors).
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Radiotherapy versus no further treatment, Outcome 2 Deaths within 5 years (unadjusted).
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Radiotherapy versus no further treatment, Outcome 3 Progression‐free survival (unadjusted).
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Radiotherapy versus no further treatment, Outcome 4 Disease recurrence within 5 years (unadjusted).
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Radiotherapy versus no further treatment, Outcome 5 Recurrence‐free survival (using adjusted HR for GOG 92).
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Radiotherapy versus no further treatment, Outcome 6 Adverse events: haematological.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Radiotherapy versus no further treatment, Outcome 7 Adverse events: gastrointestinal.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Radiotherapy versus no further treatment, Outcome 8 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events: Rectal/sigmoid strictures.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Radiotherapy versus no further treatment, Outcome 9 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events: genitourinary.
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Radiotherapy versus no further treatment, Outcome 10 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events: lymphoedema.
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Radiotherapy versus no further treatment, Outcome 11 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events: hydronephrosis.
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Radiotherapy versus no further treatment, Outcome 12 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events: neurological.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Bilek 1982 {published data only}
    1. Bilek K, Ebeling K, Leitsmann H, Seidel G. Radical pelvic surgery versus radical surgery plus radiotherapy for stage IB carcinoma of the cervix uteri: preliminary results of a prospective randomised clinical study. Archiv fur Geschwulstforschung 1982;52(3):223‐29. - PubMed
GOG 92 2006 {published data only}
    1. Rotman M, Sedlis A, Piedmonte MR, Bundy B, Lentz SS, Muderspach LI, et al. A phase III randomized trial of postoperative pelvic irradiation in stage IB cervical carcinoma with poor prognostic features: follow‐up of a gynaecologic oncology group study. International Journal of Radiation Oncology and Biological Physics 2006;65(1):169–76. - PubMed
    1. Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, Lentz SS, Muderspach LI, Zaino RJ. A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecologic Oncology 1999;73:177‐83. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Lahousen 1999 {published data only}
    1. Lahousen M, Haas J, Pickel H, Hackl A, Kurz C, Ogris H, et al. Chemotherapy versus radiotherapy versus observation for high‐risk cervical carcinoma after radical hysterectomy: a randomized, prospective, multicenter trial. Gynecologic Oncology 1999;73:196–201. - PubMed

Additional references

Benedet 2000
    1. Benedet JL, Hacker NF, Ngan HYS. Staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines of gynaecologic cancers by FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology and IGCS Guidelines Committee. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2000;70:207‐312. - PubMed
CCCMAC 2010
    1. Vale C, Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Brady M, Dinshaw K, Jakobsen A, et al (CCCMAC). Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: individual patient data meta‐analysis (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008285] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
CTCAE 2006
    1. National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.h... (accessed 15 March 2012).
Deeks 2001
    1. Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta‐analysis. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG (editors). Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta‐Analysis in Context (2nd edition). London: BMJ Publication Group, 2001:313‐35.
DerSimonian 1986
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta‐analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7:177‐88. - PubMed
EUROCARE 2003
    1. Sant M, Aareleid T, Berrino F, Bielska Lasota M, Carli PM, Faivre J, et al and the EUROCARE Working Group. EUROCARE‐3: survival of cancer patients diagnosed 1990‐94 ‐ results and commentary. Annals of Oncology 2003;14(Suppl 5):v61‐v118. - PubMed
GLOBOCAN 2008
    1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2008. Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide. IARC CancerBase No. 10, version 2.0. IARC Press, Lyon, France, 2010. Available from http://globocan.iarc.fr.
Gray 2008
    1. Gray HJ. Primary management of early stage cervical cancer (IA1‐IB) and appropriate selection of adjuvant therapy. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2008;6(1):47‐52. - PubMed
Guttmann 1970
    1. Guttmann R. Significance of post‐operative irradiation in carcinoma of the cervix: a ten year survey. American Journal of Roentgenology 1970;108:102‐8. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Kesic 2006
    1. Kesic V. Management of cervical cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2006;32(8):832‐7. - PubMed
Kitchener 2010
    1. Kitchener HC, Hoskins W, Small, W, Thomas GM, Trimble EL and the Cervical Cancer Consensus Group. The development of priority cervical cancer trials: a Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup report. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2010;20:1092‐1100. - PubMed
Moher 1998
    1. Moher D, Pham D, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta‐analyses?. Lancet 1998;352:609‐13. - PubMed
Parmar 1998
    1. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta‐analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17(24):2815‐34. - PubMed
Peters 2000
    1. Peters WA, Liu PY, Barrett RJ, Stock RJ, Monk BJ, Berek JS. Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high‐risk early‐stage cancer of the cervix. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2000;18(8):1606‐13. - PubMed
Rosa 2009
    1. Rosa DD, Medeiros LR, Bozzetti MC, Edelweiss MI, Pohlmann PR, Stein AT. Adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage cervix cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008285] - DOI - PubMed
Rydzewska 2010
    1. Rydzewska L, Tierney J, Vale CL, Symonds PR. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery for cervical cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007406.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Schulz 1995
    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408‐12. - PubMed
Sedlis 1999
    1. Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, Lentz SS, Muderspach LI, Zaino RJ. A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage Ib carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecologic Oncology 1999;73(2):177‐83. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Rogers 2009
    1. Rogers L, Sui SSN, Luesley D, Bryant A, Dickinson HO. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemoradiation after surgery for cervical cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007583.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms