ArticleThe oncologist2025
Treatment response after chemoradiation with an external beam radiation therapy boost in cervical cancer patients in Rwanda.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer remains a significant public health burden in Rwanda, where brachytherapy is not widely available. This study assessed treatment response in cervical cancer patients post-chemoradiation using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), focusing on the effectiveness of external beam boost as an alternative. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted at the Rwanda Cancer Centre, including patients treated with chemoradiation followed by an external beam boost from January 2020 to June 2022. MRI scans performed before treatment and 3-6 months post-treatment were analyzed using RECIST criteria to classify treatment response as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD). Agreement between clinical and MRI staging pre- and post-treatment was assessed using kappa coefficients.
resultsEighty-eight patients were included (mean age: 57.7 ± 10.6 years). CR, PR, SD, and PD were observed in 67%, 17%, 9%, and 7% of patients, respectively. MRI findings demonstrated substantial agreement with clinical staging before pre-treatment (78%, K = 0.63) and after post-treatment (71%, K = 0.71). CR rates were highest in early-stage disease (FIGO stage I: 90%), whereas PD was more frequent in advanced stages (FIGO stage II: 9%; FIGO stage III: 13%).
conclusionThe MRI-based RECIST criteria effectively assess the cervical cancer treatment response after post-chemoradiation. The high CR rate (67%) suggests that an external beam boost may serve as a viable alternative for brachytherapy. However, PD in advanced-stage disease highlights the need for further research to optimize treatment strategies. Future studies should evaluate long-term outcomes and explore advanced MRI techniques to enhance the response assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.