4.5 Article

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not improve the prognosis and lymph node metastasis rate of locally advanced cervical squamous cell carcinoma A retrospective cohort study in China

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 98, 期 39, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017234

关键词

cervical carcinoma; disease-free survival; lymph node metastasis; lymphatic space infiltration; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; overall survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Locally advanced cervical carcinoma has a poor prognosis. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) can reduce tumor size and improve tumor resection rate, but its use in large locally advanced cervical carcinoma is controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the treatment and prognosis of NACT in patients with cervical carcinoma stage IB2 or IIA2. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent type-C radical surgery and pelvic lymphadenectomy due to cervical carcinoma stage IB2/IIA2 between 2/2014 and 12/2016 at the Second Hospital of Jilin University. The patients were grouped according to whether they received NACT (paclitaxel and a platinum salt) or not. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between the 2 groups. Of the 144 patients, 60 (41.7%) received NACT. A total of 119 patients underwent postoperative radiation therapy, of which 97 received radiation therapy alone and 22 received concurrent chemoradiotherapy. The adverse reactions in the NACT group were mainly hematologic toxic reactions, but were tolerated. No grade >= III adverse reactions were observed. NACT did not significantly affect the PFS (P=.453) and OS (P=.933) between the 2 groups. No factor was found to be independently associated with OS or PFS (all P>.05). Compared with patients who underwent surgery with/without radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, NACT using paclitaxel and a platinum salt does not improve the prognosis and lymph node metastasis rate of locally advanced cervical carcinoma in Chinese patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据