Concomitant hydroxyurea plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a systematic review.

Abstract

We identified eight randomised control trials of hydroxyurea and radiation versus radiotherapy alone (six published in full and two abstracts). Most concluded that outcomes were improved by use of hydroxyurea. However, methodological problems associated with these trials included small sample size, a large number of patient exclusions post randomisation, differing outcome definitions, subgroup analyses of already small numbers of patients and questionable rules for censoring, particularly a failure to include treatment related deaths in the survival analysis. All but two studies were of less than 50 patients. Patients were excluded from some analyses for treatment related reasons. The exclusion of such patients undoubtedly altered the conclusions of the studies. Even if there was a survival advantage attributed to hydroxyurea, overall survival was somewhat poor. We found the evidence regarding the use of hydroxyurea and radiotherapy to be inadequate for assessing its role in the treatment of cervical cancer.

Cite this paper

@article{Symonds2004ConcomitantHP, title={Concomitant hydroxyurea plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a systematic review.}, author={R. Paul Symonds and Mandy Collingwood and John M J Kirwan and Clare Humber and J. Tierney and John A. Green and Christine H. Williams}, journal={Cancer treatment reviews}, year={2004}, volume={30 5}, pages={405-14} }