Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This review assesses the efficacy and safety of EBRT + VBT versus VBT alone in intermediate- to high-risk endometrial cancer.</p> Methods <p>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, ProQuest, Ovid, and Scopus (until February 18, 2025). Studies comparing EBRT + VBT to VBT alone were included. The primary outcome was pelvic recurrence rate, while secondary outcomes included distant recurrence, overall survival, and toxicity. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment (RoB-2, ROBINS-I), and meta-analysis (random-effects models in RevMan) were performed. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. PROSPERO registration: CRD420250654411.</p> Results <p>Eight studies comprising 2,672 patients met inclusion criteria (1,347 received EBRT + VBT; 1,325 had VBT alone). EBRT + VBT significantly reduced pelvic recurrence (OR 0.14, <i>p</i> = 0.001) but showed no difference in vaginal recurrence (OR 0.25, <i>p</i> = 0.14), distant metastasis (OR 0.78, <i>p</i> = 0.45) or overall survival (HR 0.82, <i>p</i> = 0.29, I<sup>2</sup> = 72%). EBRT + VBT was associated with higher gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and hematologic toxicity.</p> Conclusion <p>EBRT + VBT improves pelvic control but does not enhance survival and increases toxicity. VBT alone remains a viable option, highlighting the need for individualized treatment strategies.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal brachytherapy versus combined pelvic external beam radiotherapy and vaginal brachytherapy in managing intermediate to high-risk endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月3日

查看全文
  • Candra Novi Ricardo Sibarani,
  • Siti Salima,
  • Nicholas Adrianto

摘要

Purpose

This review assesses the efficacy and safety of EBRT + VBT versus VBT alone in intermediate- to high-risk endometrial cancer.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, ProQuest, Ovid, and Scopus (until February 18, 2025). Studies comparing EBRT + VBT to VBT alone were included. The primary outcome was pelvic recurrence rate, while secondary outcomes included distant recurrence, overall survival, and toxicity. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment (RoB-2, ROBINS-I), and meta-analysis (random-effects models in RevMan) were performed. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. PROSPERO registration: CRD420250654411.

Results

Eight studies comprising 2,672 patients met inclusion criteria (1,347 received EBRT + VBT; 1,325 had VBT alone). EBRT + VBT significantly reduced pelvic recurrence (OR 0.14, p = 0.001) but showed no difference in vaginal recurrence (OR 0.25, p = 0.14), distant metastasis (OR 0.78, p = 0.45) or overall survival (HR 0.82, p = 0.29, I2 = 72%). EBRT + VBT was associated with higher gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and hematologic toxicity.

Conclusion

EBRT + VBT improves pelvic control but does not enhance survival and increases toxicity. VBT alone remains a viable option, highlighting the need for individualized treatment strategies.