The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: individual patient data meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: After a 1999 National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical alert was issued, chemoradiotherapy has become widely used in treating women with cervical cancer. Two subsequent systematic reviews found that interpretation of the benefits was complicated and some important clinical questions were unanswered. OBJECTIVES: We initiated a meta-analysis seeking updated individual patient data (IPD) from all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effect of chemoradiotherapy on all outcomes. We pre-specified analyses to investigate whether the effect of chemoradiotherapy differed by trial or patient characteristics. SEARCH STRATEGY: We supplemented MEDLINE, LILACS and CANCERLIT searches with information from trial registers, by handsearching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with relevant trialists and organisations. Searches were updated until October 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Both published and unpublished trials were eligible for inclusion provided the patients had been randomised between radiotherapy (with or without surgery) versus concomitant chemoradiotherapy (with or without surgery); that the method of randomisation precluded prior knowledge of the treatment to be assigned; and that the trial had completed patient recruitment before the date of the final analyses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual patients from all available RCTs. We sought data from all patients randomised in all eligible trials. We obtained updated information on survival, recurrence and date of last follow up. To avoid potential bias, we requested information for all randomised patients, including those who had been excluded from the investigators' original analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen trials were identified and 15 of these were eligible for inclusion in the main analysis. On the basis of 13 trials that compared chemoradiotherapy versus the same radiotherapy, there was a 6% improvement in 5-year survival with chemoradiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.81, P < 0.001). A larger survival benefit was seen for the two further trials in which chemotherapy was administered after chemoradiotherapy. There was a significant survival benefit for both the group of trials that used platinum-based (HR = 0.83, P = 0.017) and non-platinum based (HR = 0.77, P = 0.009) chemoradiotherapy, but no evidence of a difference in the size of the benefit by radiotherapy or chemotherapy dose or scheduling was seen. Chemoradiotherapy also reduced local and distant recurrence and progression and improved disease-free survival (DFS). There was a suggestion of a difference in the size of the survival benefit with tumour stage, but not across other patient subgroups. Acute haematological and gastro-intestinal toxicity were increased with chemoradiotherapy, but data were too sparse for an analysis of late toxicity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These results endorse the recommendations of the NCI alert, but also demonstrate their applicability to all women and a benefit of non-platinum based chemoradiotherapy. Furthermore, although these results suggest an additional benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy this requires testing in RCTs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452 · Cited by 39,158
Global Cancer Statistics, 2002
Parkin, D. M., Bray, F., Ferlay, J., & Pisani, P. (2005) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.55.2.74 · Cited by 18,196
Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis.
Tierney, J. F., Stewart, L. A., Ghersi, D., Burdett, S., & Sydes, M. R. (2007) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-8-16 · Cited by 6,208
Parmar, M. K. B., Torri, V., & Stewart, L. (1998) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::aid-sim110>3.0.co;2-8 · Cited by 4,802
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205
Concurrent Cisplatin-Based Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer
Rose, P. G., Bundy, B. N., Watkins, E. B., Thigpen, J. T., Deppe, G., Maiman, M. A., Clarke-Pearson, D. L., & Insalaco, S. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199904153401502 · Cited by 2,658
Morris, M., Eifel, P. J., Lu, J., Grigsby, P. W., Levenback, C., Stevens, R. E., Rotman, M., Gershenson, D. M., & Mutch, D. G. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199904153401501 · Cited by 2,299
Peters, W. A., Liu, P. Y., Barrett, R. J., Stock, R. J., Monk, B. J., Berek, J. S., Souhami, L., Grigsby, P., Gordon, W., & Alberts, D. S. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2000.18.8.1606 · Cited by 2,284
Cited by
Al-Adra, D. P., Hammel, L., Roberts, J., Woodle, E. S., Levine, D., Mandelbrot, D., Verna, E., Locke, J., D’Cunha, J., Farr, M., et al. (2021) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/ajt.16318 · Cited by 163
Metadata
- Authors
- Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-analysis Collaboration (CCCMAC)
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-01-20
- Volume
- 2015
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- CD008285-CD008285
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W1583592436
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 2.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: individual patient data meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd008285
- The paper
- Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-analysis Collaboration (CCCMAC). (2010). Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: individual patient data meta-analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd008285
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.