Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery for FIGO stage I

Abstract

Objective

In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the oncological outcomes of preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery compared with radical surgery alone for treatment of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I–II cervical cancer.

Method

We searched for studies comparing the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone in treatment outcomes of locally advanced cervical cancer. Meta-analysis was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Sixteen studies were included in our analysis. Pooled analysis of overall survival rate [odds ratio (OR) = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.83–1.43] and progression-free survival rate (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.77–1.57) showed that preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not have a benefit compared with surgery alone in terms of survival rates. The pooled results for postoperative parameters indicated that preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery was associated with a high rate of vascular space involvement (OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.17–0.35) and parametrial infiltration (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45–0.79).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis indicated that surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for FIGO stage I–II cervical cancer and surgery alone had similar oncological outcomes.

Keywords

Cervical cancer preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy surgery meta-analysis survival surgical risk

Introduction

Cervical cancer is a frequent cancer-related cause of death in women in developing countries.¹ For patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage Ia–Ib1 cervical cancer, radical surgery is recognized as the standard therapy, and the 5 year survival rate of patients may be as high as 80% to 90%.^2,3 Pelvic relapse is the most common negative outcome after radical surgery for cervical carcinoma. Patients with disease at FIGO stage Ib2 and above undergo radiation therapy rather than radical surgery because of the potential for postoperative complications such as parametrial involvement, lymph node metastases, and positive surgical margins. Although radiotherapy can have the same effect as surgery, injury to surrounding tissues caused by radiation may harm ovarian function and sexual capacity, which significantly affects patients’ quality of life.

With the goal of improving efficacy for patients with cervical cancer, previous trials have been conducted to compare neoadjuvant therapy with surgery alone.^4–6 Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by radical surgery therapy (RST) has become a popular option for treatment of cervical cancer.⁷

NACT, also called early or prechemotherapy, is used to reduce tumor volume before surgery or radiotherapy. For advanced-stage cervical cancer, two to three cycles of NACT can help increase the success rate of surgical resection. Previous trials have indicated that NACT can eliminate tumor micro-metastases, shrink tumor volume, improve the resection rate, and achieve surgical down-staging of patients.⁸ A previous meta-analysis⁹ revealed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy with radical surgery increased survival rates and decreased local and distant recurrence rates in patients with stage Ib2–IIb cervical cancer. However, some studies have failed to show benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, and, in some cases, have shown unfavorable effects on efficacy.^10,11 To date, there is no agreement on whether NACT significantly improves the prognosis of patients with cervical cancer.

The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of NACT followed by RST with RST alone in patients with stage I to II cervical cancer.

Materials and methods

Ethical approval

The study did not require ethical board approval because it did not include human or animal trials.

Search strategy

We conducted a systematic screening using the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to September 2019. The process was based on MeSH terms and keywords “cervical cancer,” “neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” and “surgery”. We also searched the references of eligible publications that dealt with the topic of interest to identify additional relevant studies. We performed the current meta-analysis based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions¹² and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.¹³ Meanwhile, we did not register our study with PROSPERO before screening studies for inclusion.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria were articles relating to (1) studies focused on comparing NACT + RST and RST; (2) reports of patients clinically diagnosed with early or locally advanced (stage I–II) cervical cancer; (3) studies that included data on surgery-related outcomes and postoperative specimens for both groups; (4) and studies with full texts available.

Quality assessment

Study quality was assessed separately by two investigators using the “Risk of bias” assessment tool from the Cochrane Collaboration for further justification.¹⁴

Data extraction

Two authors independently extracted the relevant data from each trial based on the inclusion criteria. Differences were settled by consensus. We extracted the following information: name of the first author; year of publication; number of recruited participants; country; study period; histological type of the patients; tumor stage; results of interest including intraoperative parameters, complications, and pain scores.

Statistical analysis

The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager version 5.3 software (Revman; Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). A sensitivity analysis was conducted depending on the degree of heterogeneity across the included trials. Heterogeneity of the trial results was assessed using the I² statistic to select the ideal analysis model.¹⁴ Studies with an I² ≥50% suggested high heterogeneity, and those with I² < 50% indicated low heterogeneity.¹⁵ When there was low heterogeneity among trials, the fixed-effects model was used. Otherwise, the random effects model was used. A P-value < 0.05 was used to identify a statistically significant difference.

Results

Overview of literature search and study characteristics

In total, 392 publications were initially identified. According to the criteria described in the methods, 22 articles were evaluated in more detail but some failed to provide detailed results. Finally, 16 studies^16–31 were included in this meta-analysis. Table 1 provides a brief description of these studies. Figure 1 shows the search process, and Figure 2 and Figure 3 summarize the quality assessment processes.

Table 1.

Primary characteristics of the eligible studies.

Author	Country	Research period (year/month)	Tumor stage	Number of patients		Mean age (years)		Historical type	Treatment regimen	Type of study
Author	Country	Research period (year/month)	Tumor stage	NACT+RST	RST	NACT+RST	RST	Historical type	Treatment regimen	Type of study
Serur et al., 1997²⁴	USA	1987/1–1993/12	Ib2	20	32	47.8	48.7	SCC	BP, LP	PS
Behtash et al., 2006¹⁷	Iran	1996/3–2004/3	Ib-IIa	22	160	48	52	SCC+ACC	VP	RS
Cai et al., 2006²⁵	China	1999/1–2001/12	Ib	52	54	45.6	44.8	SCC+ACC	5 FU–cisplatin	RCT
Eddy et al., 2007²²	USA	1996/12–1999/1	Ib	145	143	—	—	SCC+ACC+ASC	NACT	RCT
Sardi et al., 1997²³	Argentina	1987/5–1992/12	Ib	102	103	39	41	SCC	BOMP	RCT
Chen et al., 2008¹⁸	China	1999–2004	Ib2-IIb	72	70	44	44	SCC+ACC+ASC	MP	RCT
Cho et al., 2009³⁰	Korea	1999/11–2007/9	Ib2-IIa	51	35	47.8	44.8	SCC+ACC+ASC	IP, TP	RS
Lee et al., 2011²¹	Korea	2000/1–2006/12	Ib-IIa	33	41	47.5	47.3	SCC+ACC+ASC	TP, 5 FU–cisplatin	RS
Wang et al., 2011²⁶	China	2006/1–2010/2	Ib2-IIb	68	42	45.7	49.1	SCC+ACC+ASC+other	BP, TP	RS
Kim et al., 2011²⁸	Korea	2000–2008	Ib1-IIa	451	73	50.6	49.4	SCC+ACC+ASC+other	TP, 5 FU–cisplatin	RS
Wen et al., 2012²⁹	China	2006/1–2009/12	Ib2-IIa	31	31	45.68	44.97	SCC+ACC	5 FU–cisplatin	RCT
Prueksaritanond et al., 2012²⁰	Thailand	2000/1–2009/12	Ib2-IIa	40	40	42.98	43.13	SCC+ACC	TP	RS
Katsumata et al., 2013¹⁹	Japan	2001/12–2005/7	Ib2–IIb	67	67	47	46	SCC+ASC	BOMP	RCT
Bogani et al., 2014²⁷	Italy	2007/2–2014/3	Ia-IIb	20	40	46.5	46.7	SCC+ACC+ASC+other	IP, TP	PS
Yang et al., 2016¹⁶	China	2010/9–2012/7	Ib-IIb	109	110	47	48	SCC+ACC+ASC+other	IP, TP	RCT
Zhao et al., 2019³¹	China	2009/1–2016/12	Ib2/IIa2	178	125	45.1	45.7	SCC+ACC+ASC	IP, BP, BOMP	RS

NACT, neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment; RST, radical surgery treatment; SCC, squamous carcinoma cell; ACC, adenocarcinoma; ASC, adenosquamous carcinoma; 5 FU, 5-fluorouracil; IP, irinotecan combined with cisplatin; TP, paclitaxel combined with cisplatin; VP, vincristine combined with cisplatin; MP, mitomycin combined with cisplatin; BP, bleomycin combined with cisplatin; LP, leucovorin combined with cisplatin; BOMP, bleomycin + vincristine + mitomycin combined with cisplatin; NACT, vincristine-cisplatin chemotherapy; PS, prospective study; RS, retrospective study; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Figure 1.

The PRISMA flowchart of the selection process to identify studies eligible for pooling.

Figure 2.

Quality assessment summary for included studies: + indicates low risk of bias, − indicates high risk of bias, and ? indicates unclear risk of bias.

Figure 3.

Methodological quality assessment for included studies.

Clinical and methodological heterogeneity

Survival and recurrence rates

Data on rates of survival are shown in Figure 4a and 4b. The results showed that preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (NACT+RST) was not better than RST alone; the groups did not differ in overall survival rate [odds ratio (OR) = 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83–1.43] or progression-free survival rate (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.77–1.57).

Figure 4.

Pooled analysis of (a) overall survival rate; (b) progression-free survival rate; (c) recurrence rate; (d) duration of surgery; (e) blood loss; (f) vascular space involvement; (g) parametrial infiltration; and (h) lymph node metastasis for NACT+RST versus RST. The box indicates the weight of the study, the lines indicate 95% CI, and the diamond indicates the total effect. NACT, neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment; RST, radical surgery treatment.

The fixed-effects model was used to pool recurrence rate data because there was low heterogeneity across the studies. The pooled data showed that there was no significant difference between NACT+RST and RST groups (OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.74–1.32) (Figure 4c).

Duration of surgery and blood loss

The pooled data showed no difference in duration of surgery [mean difference (MD) = 0.10, 95% CI: −0.04 to 0.24) between the NACT+RST and RST groups (Figure 4d). The blood loss rate was available for eight trials. No significant differences were observed between the NACT+RST group and the RST group in terms of blood loss rate (MD = 25.21, 95% CI: −76.47 to 126.90) (Figure 4e).

Vascular space involvement, parametrial infiltration, and lymph node metastasis

For the incidence of vascular space involvement, we found that NACT+RST was better than RST alone (OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.17–0.35; P < 0.00001) (Figure 4f). The pooled results indicated that there was a significant difference in the rate of parametrial infiltration between the two groups, and NACT+RST was better than RST alone (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45–0.79; P = 0.0004) (Figure 4g). In the analysis of the rate of lymph node metastasis, no significant difference was found between the NACT+RST and RST groups (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.39–1.06) (Figure 4h).

Discussion

Cervical cancer is the most commonly diagnosed tumor in developing countries and is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death among women.^1,32 For early-stage cervical carcinoma (stages Ia, Ib1, IIa1), surgery is accepted as the most effective therapeutic treatment. However, the use of surgery is limited to patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC, stages Ib2, IIa2, IIb).³³

Since the late 1980s, NACT before surgery has been an effective option for LACC, being effective in shrinking tumor volume, preventing micro-metastases, improving surgical feasibility, and decreasing the disease stage of patients.^8,34,35 Nevertheless, recent studies that compared NACT+RST with RST alone have shown different results,^18,22,25 and the efficacy of NACT remains unclear. Thus, the present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of NACT and RST by pooling data from published studies and providing a reference for cervical cancer patients.

Many previous studies have shown that NACT reduces the risk of pathologic factors, thereby reducing the rate of postoperative radiation and chemotherapy^30,36–38 and improving patients’ quality of life. Our data were consistent with these pathologic risk factors, and no significant differences in lymph node metastasis, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, or recurrence rate were found between the NACT+RST group and the RST group, showing that NACT could reduce the surgical risk of LACC, without increasing the difficulty of surgery.^39,40 In clinical practice, a surgeon often finds local adhesions surrounding the uterine artery and ureter, which can increase the difficulty of the surgery. Nevertheless, this phenomenon is not observed in all patients. One possible explanation is that the combination treatment was mainly used in patients with more severe local lesions, in whom artery embolization blocked tumor blood supply and thus controlled local bleeding, enabling clear exposure, and without prolonging the duration of surgery.²⁶ The other reason may be that NACT shrinks the tumor volume before surgery, which makes surgery easier.

The improvement in survival rates with NACT plus RST was not statistically significant. One explanation for this may be the variation in effectiveness of different neoadjuvant regimens.¹⁹ The trials included in our meta-analysis used cisplatin-based chemotherapy combined with irinotecan, paclitaxel, vincristine, mitomycin, vincristine, bleomycin, or 5-fluorouracil. To clarify the benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, more potent regimens of chemotherapy, with various chemotherapy cycles, dose intensity, and diversity, should be explored. Additionally, the clinical response to NACT may depend on the pathological types of the cervical cancers, which include squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Some studies have indicated that poor outcomes are observed in adenocarcinoma.⁴¹ Recently, several new drugs have been developed and sensitivity has been improved.^42,43 Moreover, the rate of postoperative adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy was lower in the NACT+RST group than in the RST group, which may have an effect on the long-term outcomes of NACT clinical responders.

Our study has several limitations. First, because of the retrospective nature of the study, clinical heterogeneity existed, such as different histological types and treatments, which may affect comparison of the clinical results. Second, data were pooled from studies with different inclusion criteria, and there was heterogeneity among the included studies. Future research should include subgroup analysis to further evaluate these two methods.

Conclusion

The findings of this study indicated that administration of NACT before radical surgery is an optimal treatment strategy for locally advanced cervical cancer, yielding an advantage in terms of reducing surgical risk without increasing difficulty of surgery or decreasing survival rate. Larger prospective trials with different neoadjuvant approaches are warranted to clarify the potential benefits of NACT.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This study was supported by Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission (grant nos. D151100001915001 and D131100005313009).

ORCID iD

Yu-Mei Wu

References

Koh

Greer

Abu-Rustum

. Cervical cancer.

J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2013; 11: 320–343.

Benedet

Odicino

Maisonneuve

, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix uteri. J Epidemiol Biostat 2001; 6: 7–43.

Landoni

Maneo

Colombo

, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet 1997; 350(9077): 535–540.

Lee

, et al. Is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery more effective than radiation therapy for stage IIB cervical cancer? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013; 23: 1303–1310.

Disilvestro

Ali

Peter

, et al. A Gynecologic oncology group phase III randomized trial of weekly cisplatin and radiation versus cisplatin and tirapazamine and radiation in stage IB2, IIA, IIIB and IVA cervical carcinoma limited to the pelvis. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 125: S3–S4.

Zuliani

Barros Esteves

Teixeira

, et al. Concomitant cisplatin plus radiotherapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy versus radiotherapy alone for stage IIIB epidermoid cervical cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 542–547.

Benedetti-Panici

Greggi

Colombo

, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical surgery versus exclusive radiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell cervical cancer: results from the Italian multicenter randomized study. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 179–188.

Hwang

Moon

Cho

, et al. Ten-year survival of patients with locally advanced, stage Ib-IIb cervical cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2001; 82: 88–93.

Zhao

Yang

, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with radical surgery vs radical surgery alone for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther 2019; 12: 1881–1891.

10.

Toita

Sakumoto

Higashi

, et al. Therapeutic value of neoadjuvant intra-arterial chemotherapy (cisplatin) and irradiation for locally advanced uterine cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 65: 421–424.

11.

Perez

Grigsby

Camel

, et al. Irradiation alone or combined with surgery in stage IB, IIA, and IIB carcinoma of uterine cervix: update for a nonrandomized comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 31: 703–716.

12.

Higgins

Green

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Cochrane Collaboration website. http://training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed November 22, 2017.

13.

Liberati

Altman

Tetzlaff

, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Epidemiol. Biostat. Public Health 2009; 6: e1–e34.

14.

Higgins

JPT

Altman

Gøtzsche

, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: 889–893.

15.

Higgins

Thompson

Deeks

, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557–560.

16.

Yang

Chen

Zhang

, et al. The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer: a randomized multicenter study. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 141: 231–239.

17.

Behtash

Nazari

Ayatollahi

, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical surgery compared to radical surgery alone in bulky stage IB–IIA cervical cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006; 32: 1226–1230.

18.

Chen

Liang

Zhang

, et al. Clinical efficacy of modified preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced (stage IB2 to IIB) cervical cancer: randomized study. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 110: 308–315.

19.

Katsumata

Yoshikawa

Kobayashi

, et al. Phase III randomised controlled trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radical surgery vs radical surgery alone for stages IB2, IIA2, and IIB cervical cancer: a Japan Clinical Oncology Group trial (JCOG 0102). Br J Cancer 2013; 109: 2505–2505.

20.

Prueksaritanond

Chaisarn

Yanaranop

The efficacy of neoadjuvant paclitaxel-carboplatin chemotherapy followed by radical hysterectomy compared to radical hysterectomy alone in bulky stage IB2-IIA cervical cancer. J Med Assoc Thai 2012; 95(Suppl 3): S55.

21.

Lee

Kim

, et al. Treatment of stage IB2, IIA bulky cervical cancer: a single-institution experience of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical hysterectomy and primary radical hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011; 284: 477–482.

22.

Eddy

Bundy

Creasman

, et al. Treatment of (“bulky”) stage IB cervical cancer with or without neoadjuvant vincristine and cisplatin prior to radical hysterectomy and pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy: a phase III trial of the gynecologic oncology group. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 106: 362–369.

23.

Sardi

Giaroli

Sananes

, et al. Long-term follow-up of the first randomized trial using neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage Ib squamous carcinoma of the cervix: the final results. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 67: 61–69.

24.

Serur

Mathews

Gates

, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage IB2 squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 65: 348–356.

25.

Cai

Chen

Yin

HH.

Randomized study of preoperative chemotherapy versus primary surgery for stage IB cervical cancer.

J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2006; 32: 315–323.

26.

Wang

Wei

, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer reduces surgical risks and lymph-vascular space involvement. Chin J Cancer 2011; 30: 645–654.

27.

Bogani

Cromi

Serati

, et al. A prospective case-control study on the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on surgery-related outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. Anticancer Res 2014; 34: 5703–5708.

28.

Kim

Chung

, et al. Significance of numbers of metastatic and removed lymph nodes in FIGO stage IB1 to IIA cervical cancer: primary surgical treatment versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery. Gynecol Oncol 2011: 121: 551–557.

29.

Wen

, et al. A prospective randomized controlled study on multiple neoadjuvant treatments for patients with stage IB2 to IIA cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012; 22: 296–302.

30.

Cho

Kim

, et al. Comparative study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical hysterectomy and radical surgery alone in stage IB2-IIA bulky cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol 2009; 20:22–27.

31.

Zhao

Zhu

, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery for FIGO stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer: a multi-center retrospective clinical study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019; 98: e15604.

32.

Jemal

Bray

Center

, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61: 69–90.

33.

Quinn

Benedet

Odicino

, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2006; 95: S43–S103.

34.

Panici

Greggi

Scambia

, et al. High-dose cisplatin and bleomycin neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radical surgery in locally advanced cervical carcinoma: a preliminary report. Gynecol Oncol 1991; 41: 212–216.

35.

Sardi

Sananes

Giaroli

, et al. Results of a prospective randomized trial with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage IB, bulky, squamous carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 1993; 49:156–165.

36.

Rydzewska

Tierney

Vale

, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery for cervical cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 12: CD007406.

37.

Kim

Park

, et al. Matched-case comparison for the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery in FIGO stage IB1-IIA cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 119: 217–224.

38.

Chen

, et al. Matched-case comparison of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with FIGO stage IB1-IIB cervical cancer to establish selection criteria. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48: 2353–2360.

39.

Fujiwaki

Iida

Ohnishi

, et al. Intra-arterial neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery and radiotherapy for stage IIb cervical carcinoma. Anticancer Res 1997; 17: 3751–3755.

40.

Vizza

Pellegrino

Milani

, et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in locally advanced stage IB2-IIB cervical cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2011, 37: 364–369.

41.

Rose

Java

Whitney

, et al. Locally advanced adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinomas of the cervix compared to squamous cell carcinomas of the cervix in gynecologic oncology group trials of cisplatin-based chemoradiation. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 135: 208–212.

42.

, et al. The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in different histological types of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 134: 419–425.

43.

Chen

Huang

, et al. Differential clinical characteristics, treatment response and prognosis of locally advanced adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of cervix treated with definitive radiotherapy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2014; 93: 661–668.

Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery for FIGO stage I–II cervical cancer: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and methods

Ethical approval

Search strategy

Eligibility criteria

Quality assessment

Data extraction

Statistical analysis

Results

Overview of literature search and study characteristics

Clinical and methodological heterogeneity

Survival and recurrence rates

Duration of surgery and blood loss

Vascular space involvement, parametrial infiltration, and lymph node metastasis

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

Funding

ORCID iD

References