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.
Candra Novi Ricardo Sibarani, Siti Salima, Nicholas Adrianto
{"title":"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.","authors":"Candra Novi Ricardo Sibarani, Siti Salima, Nicholas Adrianto","doi":"10.1186/s43046-025-00302-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This review assesses the efficacy and safety of EBRT + VBT versus VBT alone in intermediate- to high-risk endometrial cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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><p><strong>Results: </strong>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, I<sup>2</sup> = 72%). EBRT + VBT was associated with higher gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and hematologic toxicity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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>","PeriodicalId":17301,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute","volume":"37 1","pages":"45"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43046-025-00302-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
期刊介绍:
As the official publication of the National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, the Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute (JENCI) is an open access peer-reviewed journal that publishes on the latest innovations in oncology and thereby, providing academics and clinicians a leading research platform. JENCI welcomes submissions pertaining to all fields of basic, applied and clinical cancer research. Main topics of interest include: local and systemic anticancer therapy (with specific interest on applied cancer research from developing countries); experimental oncology; early cancer detection; randomized trials (including negatives ones); and key emerging fields of personalized medicine, such as molecular pathology, bioinformatics, and biotechnologies.