In Regard to Datta et al.

The systematic review of Datta et al (2019)1 on the evaluation of various therapeutic options in locally advanced cervix cancer has, in my opinion, a hidden agenda of substantiating the use of hyperthermia in locally advanced cervix cancer. The review is not systematic (ie, selective) because it includes only 6 favorable randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 11 available; 5 RCTs were not included, including 3 phase 3 RCTs, and showed no effect of hyperthermia. Three of them were excluded as not compliant to inclusion criteria, but 2 phase 3 RCTs were excluded unreasonably: the RCT of Zolciak-Siwinska2 used standard fractionated external beam radiation therapy, and the RCT of Vasanthan3 used adequate radiation therapy (RT) with TD ≈ 84 Gy, so both met the inclusion criteria; moreover, the RT schedule in the latter was more “satisfactory” than, for example, in the contemporary RCT of the Dutch Deep Hyperthermia trial4 (TD = 68 Gy), which, however, was included.
Source: International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics - Category: Radiology Authors: Tags: Comments Source Type: research