J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2013) 139:1887–1898
DOI 10.1007/s00432-013-1509-y
ORIGINAL PAPER
Responsiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery
predicts favorable prognosis for cervical cancer patients:
a meta-analysis
Qing Ye • Hong-Xin Yuan • Hong-Lin Chen
Received: 28 August 2013 / Accepted: 30 August 2013 / Published online: 11 September 2013
Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract
Background Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) before
surgery has already shown the therapy effectiveness in
patients with cervical cancer. The present meta-analysis
was conducted to determine whether the response to NAC
predicts for prognosis.
Methods Systematic computerized searches of the Pub-
Med and Web of Knowledge were performed. Prognosis
outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), and
overall survival (OS). The pooled odd ratio (OR) was
estimated by using fixed-effect model or random-effect
model according to heterogeneity between studies.
Results Eighteen studies with 1,785 patients were inclu-
ded. Cisplatin-based NAC treatments were most commonly
used. The clinical response rate ranged from 48.4 to
93.0 %, and the pathological response rate ranged from
27.6 to 30.6 %. The pooled ORs estimating the association
of PFS with NAC response were 5.707 (95 % CI
3.564–9.137), 6.798 (95 % CI 4.716–9.799), 6.327 (95 %
CI 4.398–9.102), and 5.214 (95 % CI 3.748–7.253) at 1-,
2-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up, respectively, and the pooled
ORs estimating the association of OS with NAC response
Q. Ye (&)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Affiliated Hospital
of Nantong University, Xi Si Road 20#, Nantong City 226001,
Jiangsu Province, People’s Republic of China
e-mail: pphss@126.com
H.-X. Yuan
Department of Interventional Radiology, Affiliated Hospital
of Nantong University, Xi Si Road 20#, Nantong City, Jiangsu
Province, People’s Republic of China
H.-L. Chen
Nantong University, Qixiu Road 19#, Nantong City, Jiangsu
Province, People’s Republic of China
were 6.179 (95 % CI 3.390–11.264), 9.155 (95 % CI
5.759–14.555), 8.431 (95 % CI 5.667–12.543), and 5.785
(95 % CI 4.124–8.115) at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up,
respectively. No obvious statistical heterogeneity was
detected. Funnel plots and Egger’s tests did not reveal
publication bias. Sensitivity analysis showed the results of
meta-analysis were robust.
Conclusion This meta-analysis confirms that response to
NAC is an indicator for PFS and OS, and suggests that
patients-achieving response of NAC before surgery pre-
dicts favorable prognosis for cervical cancer patients.
Keywords Cervical cancer
Neoadjuvant
chemotherapy
Anti-tumor response
Prognosis

Meta-analysis
Introduction
Cervical cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed
cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer death in
females worldwide, accounting for 9 % (529,800) of the
total new cancer cases and 8 % (275,100) of the total
cancer deaths among females in 2008. More than 85 % of
these cases and deaths occur in developing countries (Je-
mal et al. 2011). Standard treatment strategies recommend
by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)
(2013) and the International Federation of Gynecology and
Obstetrics (FIGO) include surgical therapy, adjuvant radi-
ation, adjuvant chemotherapy, and systemic therapy (Wi-
ebe et al. 2012).
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), short-course che-
motherapy administered before surgical treatment, has
become an alternative approach for the treatment of cer-
vical cancer since the 1990s. NAC can reduce tumor bulk
123
1888
and positivity of lymph nodes and facilitate subsequent
radical trachelectomy. NAC also increase radio-sensitivity
and decrease the hypoxic cell fraction. Moreover, NAC
treats the micrometastatic disease, preventing a significant
proportion of relapses (González-Martı́n et al. 2008). More
and more evidence showed NAC before surgery can
improve the long-term prognosis of cervical cancer. A
meta-analysis of individual patient data from 21 random-
ised trials indicated a highly significant reduction in the
risk of death with NAC (2003) for locally advanced cer-
vical cancer [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65; 95 % confidence
interval (CI) 0.53–0.80; P = 0.0004]. A recently updated
Cochrane systematic review included 6 randomized con-
trolled clinical trials with 1,078 women and found that both
overall survival (HR 0.77; 95 % CI 0.62–0.96; P = 0.02)
and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.75; 95 % CI
0.61–0.93; P = 0.008) were significantly improved with
NAC (Rydzewska et al. 2012).
Some studies also reported the achievement of anti-
tumor response was the strongest independent prognostic
variable for patients with cervical cancer treated with NAC
before surgery. In the SNAP01 study, Buda et al. (2005)
reported the average death rates were higher in the group
that did not achieve optimal pathologic response (HR 5.88;
95 % CI 2.50–13.84; P \ 0.0001). In a retrospective study,
Gadducci et al. (2010a) also found the pathological
response was independent prognostic variables of recur-
rence-free survival (HR 7.999; 95 % CI 1.916–33.394) and
overall survival (HR 6.007; 95 % CI 1.426–25.307) on
multivariate analysis. Xiong et al. (2011) also reported
response to NAC was the only factor associated with sur-
vival (P = 0.036) on Cox proportional hazards model.
However, this conclusion all came from small sample
studies.
The aim of current meta-analysis was to pool the
existing data to determine if anti-tumor responses predict
for outcomes in cervical cancer patients who have received
NAC before surgery.
Methods
Database and literature search
Systematic computerized searches of the PubMed and Web
of Knowledge were performed from their inception to July
25, 2013. The following search terms were used: cervical
cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, preoperative chemo-
therapy, response, remission, prognosis, and survival. The
search detail in PubMed was ‘‘uterine cervical neo-
plasms’’[MeSH Terms] AND (‘‘neoadjuvant chemother-
apy’’ [title/abstract] OR ‘‘preoperative chemotherapy’’
[title/abstract]) AND (response [title/abstract] OR
123
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2013) 139:1887–1898
remission [title/abstract]) AND (prong* [title/abstract] OR
survival [title/abstract]). In Web of Science citation data-
base, we select Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-
EXPANDED) database and Conference Proceedings Cita-
tion Index Science (CPCI-S) database. The search detail
used as follows: TS = (cervical cancer) AND
(TS = neoadjuvant chemotherapy OR TS = preoperative
chemotherapy) AND (TS = response OR TS = remission)
AND (TS = prong* OR TS = survival). We also looked at
posters from the annual meetings of the American Society
of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (http://www.asco.org/
ASCOv2/Meetings) and the European Society for Medi-
cal Oncology (ESMO) (http://www.esmo.org/) in the past
10 years. The references of all relevant studies were also
manually reviewed to supplement our searches. Only
studies published in English were included.
Study selection
The relevant clinical studies were manually selected care-
fully based on the following criteria: (1) NAC had to be
delivered before surgery for cervical cancer. (2) Anti-tumor
response after NAC was evaluated using Response Eval-
uation Criteria in Solid Tumors guidelines or other criteria.
The anti-tumor responses included complete response
(CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and pro-
gressive disease (PD). The response rate was defined as
(CR ? PR)/(CR ? PR ? SD ? PD) * 100 %. (3) Prog-
nosis outcomes, such as progression-free survival (PFS),
disease-free survival (DFS), tumor-free survival (TFS),
disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS),
were reported in the studies; and the outcomes were also
compared between NAC responders and nonresponders.
When the same patient population was used in several
papers, only the most recent study was included in the
meta-analysis.
Data extraction
The following data were abstracted onto standardized
forms: (1) basic information from papers, such as first
author, publication year, country; (2) characteristics of
patients, such as number, age, TNM stage, and histology;
(3) information of NAC, such as year, NAC program, and
response rate; (4) duration of follow-up; and (5) survival
outcomes, such as 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year PFS/OS rate in
NAC responders and nonresponders. If these data were not
directly available in the paper, we used Engauge Digitizer
(version 4.1, free software downloaded from http://
digitizer.sourceforge.net/) to read the survival curves
extracted from the included studies. DFS and TFS were
recognized as PFS, and DSS was recognized as OS. Data
extraction was carried out independently by two reviewers.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2013) 139:1887–1898
Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the
two.
Qualitative assessment
The quality of studies was assessed according to the
Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) (Wells et al. 2013). The
NOS contains eight items, categorized into three dimen-
sions including Selection (4), Comparability (1), and
Exposure (3). A high-quality study can be awarded a
maximum of one star for each numbered item within the
Selection and Exposure categories. A maximum of two
stars can be given for Comparability. The NOS ranges from
zero up to nine stars.
Statistical analysis
The pooled ORs with 95 % CI for survival outcomes
compared with NAC responders and nonresponders were
calculated for each measurement. Each publication was
weighted according to the size of the sample. Statistical
heterogeneity was explored by v2 and inconsistency (I2)
statistics; P \ 0.05 for v2 or I2 value of 50 % or more
represented substantial heterogeneity (Higgins et al. 2003).
In the absence of significant heterogeneity, studies were
pooled using a fixed-effect model. If heterogeneity was
observed, a random-effects model was used. Overall effects
were determined using the Z test. Visual inspection of a
funnel plot, the Egger’s regression test, and Begg’s
adjusted rank correlation test were performed to assess
publication bias. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by
removing the largest sample study. All statistical analyses
were performed with Stata software, version 12.0 (Stata
Corp, College Station, Texas). Two-sided P \ 0.050 was
considered statistically significant.
Results
Eligible studies
We identified 18 studies (Xiong et al. 2011; Shoji et al.
2013; Li et al. 2013; Robova et al. 2013; Hu et al. 2012;
Huang et al. 2011; Park et al. 2009, 2011; Gadducci et al.
2010b; Mori et al. 2010; Kumar et al. 2009; Choi et al.
2008; Cai et al. 2006; Selvaggi et al. 2006; Fuso et al.
2005; Chen et al. 2002, 2008; MacLeod et al. 2001) that
met our inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The detailed
steps of our literature search are shown in Fig. 1. A total of
1,785 patients were used in the pooled analyses. Of the 18
studies, sample sizes ranged from 23 to 707. Six of these
studies were conducted in China, 3 in Italy, 3 in Korea, 2 in
Japan, and the rest of four conducted in Czech Republic,
1889
Records identified through Pubmed Additional records
searching (n=132) identified through
Records identified through Web of meeting abstract
Science searching (n=127) (n =5)
Records after duplicates removed (n = 187)
Records excluded by title and abstract review
Records Reviews (n=11)
screened Case reports and case series (n=23)
(n =187) Non-English articles (n=18)
No available data (n=73)
Full-text articles assessed Full-text articles excluded
(n=62) No available data (n=44)
Studies included in quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) (n=18)
Fig. 1 Flow diagram showing selection of studies
India, Taiwan, and Australia, respectively. Thirteen studies
included local advanced cancer for TNM Stage I–II, and
the rest of 5 included cancers for TNM Stage I–III or I–IV.
Two studies only included squamous cell carcinoma, a
study only included non-squamous cell carcinoma, and the
other 15 studies included squamous cell carcinoma and
adenocarcinoma. NAC agents varied greatly, but most of
them were cisplatin-based. The clinical response rate pro-
vided by 15 studies ranged from 48.4 to 93.0 %, and the
pathological response rate provided by 3 studies ranged
from 27.6 to 30.6 %. The quality rating of the included
studies ranged from six to eight stars on the scale of nine.
Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the 18 included
studies, and Table 2 shows the survival outcomes com-
pared NAC responders with nonresponders.
Main results of progression-free survival
A total of 10 studies provided 1-year PFS in NAC
responders and nonresponders. The 1-year PFS ranged
from 72.2–100.0 % in NAC responders and 40.0–95.2 % in
nonresponders. No heterogeneity was found between the
studies (I2 = 0.0 %, P = 0.513). The pooled OR was
5.707 (95 % CI 3.564–9.137; Z = 7.25, P = 0.000) by
fixed-effect model (Fig. 2). The Begg’s test (Z = 0.00,
P = 1.000) and the Egger’s test (t = 1.08, P = 0.310)
suggested there was no significant publication bias. Fig-
ure 3 shows the funnel plot of publication bias.
A total of 11 studies provided 2-year PFS in NAC
responders and nonresponders. The 2-year PFS ranged
123
 Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
1890

Study (year) County No. of Age TNM Histology Year of NAC Response rate Duration of follow- NOS
patients stage NAC up

123
Shoji et al. Japan 23 50 (32–63) IB2– Non-sq 2002–2011 Paclitaxel ? carboplatin (TC) or docetaxel ? carboplatin (DC), 78.3 % (18/ Up to 90 months 7
(2013) IIB maximum 3 courses 23)
Li et al. China 154 41.6 ± 7.92 IB2– Sq and 2000–2011 Docetaxel ? paclitaxel ? nedaplatin (TP) or 72.1 % (111/ 1–12 years 8
(2013) IIA2 Ad bleomycin ? vincristine ? cisplatin (BVP), 2–3 cycles 154)
Robova Czech 151 45.7 IB Sq and 1998–2009 Cisplatin ? ifosfamide or cisplatin ? doxorubicine, 3 cycles 78.8 % (119/ 29–154 months 8
et al. Republic (20–70) Ad 151)
(2013)
Hu et al. China 707 NR IB1– Sq and 2002–2008 Cisplatin-based chemotherapy, 1–2 courses 79.3 % (541/ Up to 120 months 8
(2012) IIB Ad 682)
Xiong et al. China 60 49 (28–61) IB2– Sq and 2004–2009 Irinotecan ? cisplatin, 2 cycles 65 % (39/60) Up to 70 months 8
(2011) IIB Ad
Huang et al. China 52 46 (30–63) IB2– Sq and 2007–2009 Docetaxel ? cisplatin, 2 cycles 86.5 % (45/ Up to 40 months 7
(2011) IIB Ad 52)
Park et al. Republic 43 50 (30–78) IIB Sq and 1997–2007 Cisplatin ? etoposide, 3 courses 65.1 % (28/ Up to 125 months 8
(2011) of Korea Ad 43)
Gadducci Italy 43 43 (27–69) IB2– Sq and 1999–2009 Ifosfamide ? paclitaxel ? cisplatin, or paclitaxel ? cisplatin, 27.9 % (12/ 5 years 8
et al. IIB Ad 3 cycles 43)
(2010a, b) pathological
Mori et al. Japan 30 60 (29–74) IB2– Sq and 2002–2006 Paclitaxel ?carboplatin, 6 cycles 86.7 % (26/ 55.6 7
(2010) IIIB Ad 30) (26–83 months)
Park et al. South 43 52 (36–72) IB2– Sq and 2000–2002 Paclitaxel ? cisplatin, 3 cycles 93.0 % (40/ 5 years 7
(2009) Korea IIB Ad 43)
Kumar et al. India 49 50 (35–70) IB2– Sq and 2000–2006 Paclitaxel ? ifosfamide ? cisplatin, 2 or 3 courses 30.6 % (15/ 14 7
(2009) IVa Ad 49) (0.5–62.9 months)
pathological
Choi et al. Korea 29 47 (33–70) IB2– Sq NR Vincristine ? mitomycin-C ? cisplatin, 3 cycles 27.6 % (8/29) 48 (3–105 months) 7
(2008) IIB pathological
Chen et al. China 72 44 (25–74) IB2– Sq and 1999–2004 Cisplatin ? mitomycin-C ? 5-fluorouracil, 2 cycles 69.4 % (50/ 4–9 years 7
(2008) IIB Ad 72)
Cai et al. China 52 45.6 ± 22.4 IB Sq and 1999–2001 Cisplatin ? 5-Fu, 2 courses 84.6 % (44/ 62 (18–95 months) 7
(2006) Ad 52)
Selvaggi Italy 67 51 (27–75) IB2– Sq and 1992–2003 Cisplatin and vinorelbine; cisplatin and irinotecan; cisplatin and 91.0 % (61/ 93 (4–130 months) 7
et al. III Ad ifosphamide; and bleomycin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, 3 67)
(2006) (2–6) cycles
Fuso et al. Italy 73 Mean 49.3 IB2– Sq 1997–2004 Platinum, 3 cycles 64.4 % (47/ Up to 140 months 7
(2005) III 73)
Chen et al. Taiwan 31 49.3 ± 8.4 IB2– Sq and 1991–1999 Cisplatin ? vincristine ? bleomycin, 3 courses 48.4 % (15/ Up to 120 months 6
(2002) IIA Ad 31)
MacLeod Australia 106 NR IB–IV Sq and 1982–1995 Cisplatin ? vinblastine ? bleomycin; or Epirubicin ? cisplatin; 58.5 % (62/ Median 6.9 years 6
et al. Ad or Etoposide ? vincristine ? cyclophosphamide ? adriamycin, 106)
(2001) 3 courses

NAC neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Sq squamous cell carcinoma, Ad adenocarcinoma, NOS Newcastle–Ottawa Scale
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2013) 139:1887–1898
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2013) 139:1887–1898 1891

Table 2 Survival outcomes in NAC responders (CR ? PR) and nonresponders (SD ? PD)
Study (year) Outcomes NAC responders Nonresponders

Shoji et al. (2013) 1-year PFS rate 72.2 % (13/18) 40 % (2/5)

1-year OS rate 88.9 % (16/18) 80 % (4/5)
2-year PFS rate 55.6 % (10/18) 40 % (2/5)
2-year OS rate 66.6 % (12/18) 60 % (3/5)
3-year PFS rate 38.9 % (7/18) 20 % (1/5)
3-year OS rate 50 % (9/18) 20 % (1/5)
5-year PFS rate 27.8 % (5/18) 0 % (0/5)
5-year OS rate 33.3 % (6/18) 0 % (0/5)
Li et al. (2013) 1-year PFS rate 98 % (109/111) 93 % (40/43)
1-year OS rate 100 % (111/111) 93 % (40/43)
2-year PFS rate 96 % (107/111) 86 % (37/43)
2-year OS rate 100 % (111/111) 86 % (37/43)
3-year PFS rate 96 % (107/111) 86 % (37/43)
3-year OS rate 100 % (111/111) 86 % (37/43)
5-year PFS rate 94 % (104/111) 86 % (37/43)
5-year OS rate 96 % (107/111) 86 % (37/43)
Robova et al. (2013) 1-year PFS rate 98 % (117/119) 80 % (26/32)
1-year DSS rate 100 % (119/119) 95 % (30/32)
2-year PFS rate 93 % (110/119) 70 % (22/32)
2-year DSS rate 96 % (114/119) 71 % (23/32)
3-year PFS rate 90 % (107/119) 65 % (21/32)
3-year DSS rate 92 % (109/119) 70 % (22/32)
5-year PFS rate 86 % (102/119) 65 % (21/32)
5-year DSS rate 88 % (105/119) 65 % (21/32)
Hu et al. (2012) 1-year DFS rate 97 % (524/541) 87 % (123/141)
1-year OS rate 98 % (532/541) 93 % (131/141)
2-year DFS rate 96 % (519/541) 72 % (101/141)
2-year OS rate 98 % (530/541) 81 % (114/141)
3-year DFS rate 94 % (509/541) 68 % (96/141)
3-year OS rate 96 % (519/541) 70 % (99/141)
5-year DFS rate 92 % (498/541) 68 % (96/141)
5-year OS rate 95 % (514/541) 68 % (96/141)
Xiong et al. (2011) 1-year OS rate 97 % (38/39) 90 % (19/21)
2-year DFS rate 88 % (34/39) 51 % (11/21)
2-year OS rate 94 % (37/39) 51 % (11/21)
3-year OS rate 94 % (37/39) 42 % (9/21)
Huang et al. (2011) 1-year PFS rate 95.5 % (43/45) 57.1 % (4/7)
1-year OS rate 100 % (45/45) 85.7 % (6/7)
2-year PFS rate 90.3 % (41/45) 57.1 % (4/7)
2-year OS rate 100 % (45/45) 68.6 % (5/7)
Park et al. (2011) 1-year DFS rate 89.0 % (25/28) 49.0 % (7/15)
2-year DFS rate 82.0 % (23/28) 39.0 % (6/15)
3-year DFS rate 70.0 % (20/28) 31.0 % (5/15)
5-year DFS rate 66.4 % (19/28) 24.0 % (4/15)
Gadducci et al. (2010a, b) 5-year DFS rate 75 % (9/12) 19 % (6/31)
5-year OS rate 83 % (10/12) 37 % (11/31)

123
1892 J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2013) 139:1887–1898

Table 2 continued
Study (year) Outcomes NAC responders Nonresponders

Mori et al. (2010) 1-year OS rate 96.1 % (25/26) 75 % (3/4)

2-year OS rate 92.3 % (24/26) 75 % (3/4)
3-year OS rate 92.3 % (24/26) 75 % (3/4)
5-year OS rate 88.4 % (23/26) 50 % (2/4)
Park et al. (2009) 5-year OS rate 91.2 % (31/34) 66.7 % (2/3)
Kumar et al. (2009) 1-year DFS rate 100.0 % (15/15) 72 % (24/34)
2-year DFS rate 100.0 % (15/15) 52 % (18/34)
3-year DFS rate 100.0 % (15/15) 39 % (13/34)
5-year DFS rate 100.0 % (15/15) 39 % (13/34)
Choi et al. (2008) 1-year PFS rate 100 % (8/8) 95 % (20/21)
2-year PFS rate 100 % (8/8) 71 % (15/21)
3-year PFS rate 100 % (8/8) 65 % (14/21)
5-year PFS rate 100 % (8/8) 65 % (14/21)
Chen et al. (2008) 1-year TFS rate 96 % (48/50) 64 % (14/22)
2-year TFS rate 91 % (46/50) 50 % (11/22)
3-year TFS rate 91 % (46/50) 50 % (11/22)
5-year TFS rate 83 % (42/50) 42 % (9/22)
Cai et al. (2006) 2-year OS rate 100 % (44/44) 87.5 % (7/8)
3-year OS rate 98 % (43/44) 62.5 % (5/8)
5-year OS rate 93 % (41/44) 50 % (4/8)
Selvaggi et al. (2006) 1-year OS rate 97 % (59/61) 67 % (4/6)
2-year OS rate 84 % (51/61) 17 % (1/6)
3-year OS rate 79 % (48/61) 17 % (1/6)
5-year OS rate 66 % (40/61) 17 % (1/6)
Fuso et al. (2005) 1-year OS rate 100 % (47/47) 72 % (19/26)
2-year OS rate 98 % (46/47) 58 % (15/26)
3-year OS rate 94 % (44/47) 54 % (14/26)
5-year OS rate 94 % (44/47) 46 % (12/26)
Chen et al. (2002) 1-year DFS rate 87 % (13/15) 88 % (14/16)
2-year DFS rate 80 % (12/15) 81 % (13/16)
3-year DFS rate 80 % (12/15) 81 % (13/16)
5-year DFS rate 80 % (12/15) 81 % (13/16)
1-year OS rate 87 % (13/15) 95 % (15/16)
2-year OS rate 80 % (12/15) 95 % (15/16)
3-year OS rate 80 % (12/15) 95 % (15/16)
5-year OS rate 80 % (12/15) 85 % (14/16)
MacLeod et al. (2001) 5-year OS rate 38 % (24/62) 18 % (8/44)
NAC neoadjuvant chemotherapy, CR complete response, PR partial response, SD stable disease, PD progressive disease, DFS disease-free
survival, PFS progression-free survival, TFS tumor-free survival, DSS disease-specific survival, OS overall survival

from 55.6–100.0 % in NAC responders and 40.0–96.0 % in
nonresponders. No heterogeneity was found between the
studies (I2 = 0.0 %, P = 0.461). The pooled OR was
6.798 (95 % CI 4.716–9.799; Z = 10.27, P = 0.000) by
fixed-effect model. The Begg’s test (Z = 0.00, P = 1.000)
and the Egger’s test (t = 0.28, P = 0.783) suggested there
was no significant publication bias. The forest plot and
funnel plot are showed in ‘‘Appendix’’.
A total of 9 studies provided 3-year PFS in NAC
responders and nonresponders. The 3-year PFS ranged
from 38.9–100.0 % in NAC responders and 20.0–86.0 % in
nonresponders. No heterogeneity was found between the
studies (I2 = 11.5 %, P = 0.339). The pooled OR was
6.327 (95 % CI 4.398–9.102; Z = 9.94, P = 0.000) by
fixed-effect model. The Begg’s test (z = 0.52, P = 0.602)
and the Egger’s test (t = 0.73, P = 0.490) suggested there

123
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2013) 139:1887–1898 1893

Study %
and the Egger’s test (t = 1.42, P = 0.194) suggested there
ID OR (95% CI) Weight was no significant publication bias. The forest plot and
funnel plot are showed in ‘‘Appendix’’.
Shoji T, 2013 3.90 (0.49, 30.76) 6.33
The pooled PFS rates in NAC responders and nonre-
Li R, 2013 4.09 (0.66, 25.37) 7.56
Robova H, 2013 13.50 (2.58, 70.70) 5.01
sponders were listed in the Table 3 and Fig. 4. The results
Hu T, 2012 4.51 (2.26, 9.01) 44.63 showed NAC response is a prognostic indicator for PFS
Huang X, 2011 16.13 (2.05, 126.74) 2.24 in cervical cancer patients treated with NAC before
Park JS, 2011 9.52 (1.98, 45.75) 7.11
surgery.
Kumar JV, 2009 13.29 (0.73, 243.27) 3.50
Choi CH, 2008 1.24 (0.05, 33.69) 4.81
Chen H, 2008 13.71 (2.61, 72.12) 5.66 Main results of overall survival
Chen CA, 2002 0.93 (0.11, 7.59) 13.15
Overall (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.513) 5.71 (3.56, 9.14) 100.00
A total of 10 studies provided 1-year OS in NAC
responders and nonresponders. The 1-year OS ranged from
.00411 1 243
86.7–100.0 % in NAC responders and 73.1–93.8 % in
Fig. 2 Pooled OR of 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) com- nonresponders. No heterogeneity was found between the
pared NAC responders with nonresponders studies (I2 = 16.2 %, P = 0.294). The pooled OR was
6.179 (95 % CI 3.390–11.264; Z = 5.94, P = 0.000) by
fixed-effect model. The Begg’s test (z = 1.97, P = 0.049)
Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits and the Egger’s test (t = 1.40, P = 0.200) suggested there
was no significant publication bias. The forest plot and
0

funnel plot are showed in ‘‘Appendix’’.

A total of 11 studies provided 2-year OS in NAC
.5

responders and nonresponders. The 2-year OS ranged from

66.7–100.0 % in NAC responders and 16.7–93.8 % in
se(logOR)

nonresponders. No heterogeneity was found between the

1

studies (I2 = 42.2 %, P = 0.068). The pooled OR was

9.155 (95 % CI 5.759–14.555; Z = 9.36, P = 0.000) by
1.5

fixed-effect model. The Begg’s test (z = 1.09, P = 0.276)

and the Egger’s test (t = 1.40, P = 0.195) suggested there
was no significant publication bias. The forest plot and
2

0 5 10 15 funnel plot are showed in ‘‘Appendix’’.

OR
Fig. 3 The funnel plot of meta-analysis for 1-year progression-free
survival (PFS) compared NAC responders with nonresponders
was no significant publication bias. The forest plot and
funnel plot are showed in ‘‘Appendix’’.
A total of 10 studies provided 5-year PFS in NAC
responders and nonresponders. The 5-year PFS ranged
from 27.8–100.0 % in NAC responders and 0.0–86.0 % in
nonresponders. No heterogeneity was found between the
studies (I2 = 24.2 %, P = 0.221). The pooled OR was
5.214 (95 % CI 3.748–7.253; Z = 9.80, P = 0.000) by
fixed-effect model. The Begg’s test (z = 1.07, P = 0.283)
A total of 10 studies provided 3-year OS in NAC
responders and nonresponders. The 3-year OS ranged from
50.0–100.0 % in NAC responders and 20.0–93.8 % in
nonresponders. No heterogeneity was found between the
studies (I2 = 37.6 %, P = 0.108). The pooled OR was
8.431 (95 % CI 5.667–12.543; Z = 10.52, P = 0.000) by
fixed-effect model. The Begg’s test (z = 0.89, P = 0.371)
and the Egger’s test (t = 1.13, P = 0.290) suggested there
was no significant publication bias. The forest plot and
funnel plot are showed in ‘‘Appendix’’.
A total of 12 studies provided 5-year OS in NAC
responders and nonresponders. The 5-year OS ranged from
33.3–96.4 % in NAC responders and 0.0–86.0 % in

Table 3 Pooled progression-free survival (PFS) rate and overall survival (OS) rate in NAC responders and nonresponders
Outcomes Group 1-year 2-year 3-year 5-year

PFS rate (95 % CI) NAC responders 96.3 % (94.9–97.4 %) 93.5 % (91.8–95.0 %) 91.8 % (89.8–93.5 %) 88.9 % (86.7–90.8 %)
Nonresponders 81.5 % (77.0–85.6 %) 67.2 % (62.1–72.0 %) 64.1 % (58.7–69.3 %) 59.2 % (53.9–64.3 %)
OS rate (95 % CI) NAC responders 98.4 % (97.5–99.1 %) 96.2 % (94.9–97.3 %) 93.6 % (92.0–95.1 %) 87.7 % (85.6–89.6 %)
Nonresponders 90.0 % (86.1–93.1 %) 75.7 % (70.6–80.4 %) 68.2 % (62.6–73.4 %) 57.9 % (52.6–63.1 %)

123
1894 J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2013) 139:1887–1898

100 (0 vs. 4.7 %, P = 0.022; 0 vs. 3.3 %, P = 0.052), deep

90
DFP (%)

stromal invasion (19.8 vs. 53.5 %, P = 0.000; 19.8 vs.

80
70
29.3 %, P = 0.08), lymph node metastasis (8.1 vs. 25.6 %,
60 P = 0.004; 8.1 vs. 17.3 %, P = 0.031), and the need of
50 adjuvant radiotherapy (5.5 vs. 30.2 %, P = 0.000; 5.4 vs.
0 year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5 year
15.3 %, P = 0.012), as compared with nonresponders and
Follow-up
primary surgery treatment. Chen et al. (2008) reported the
100 pelvic metastasis (P = 0.025) and parametrial infiltration
90 rates (P = 0.038) were significantly lower in NAC group
OS (%)

80 than in the primary surgery group. The same results were

70
60
50
0 year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 year
Follow-up
Fig. 4 Pooled progression-free survival (PFS) rate and overall
survival (OS) rate in NAC responders and nonresponders
nonresponders. No heterogeneity was found between the
studies (I2 = 24.8 %, P = 0.200). The pooled OR was
5.785 (95 % CI 4.124–8.115; Z = 10.17, P = 0.000) by
fixed-effect model. The Begg’s test (z = 0.34, P = 0.732)
and the Egger’s test (t = 0.21, P = 0.836) suggested there
was no significant publication bias. The forest plot and
funnel plot are showed in ‘‘Appendix’’.
The pooled OS rates in NAC responders and nonre-
sponders are listed in the Table 3 and Fig. 4. The results
showed NAC response is a prognostic indicator for OS in
cervical cancer patients treated with NAC before surgery.
Sensitivity analyses
After removing the largest sample study (Hu et al. 2012),
the pooled OR of PFS and OS did not change much. The
results of sensitivity analysis are presented in Table 4.
Sensitivity analysis showed the results of meta-analysis
were robust.
Discussion
Our meta-analysis found response to NAC is an important
indicator for PFS and OS at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up
for cervical cancer patients. Li et al. (2013) also reported
NAC decreased the ratio of lymphovascular space invasion
confirmed by other studies (Xiong et al. 2011; Huang et al.
2011; Gong et al. 2012). These results may be the reason
5 year
that NAC achieved favorable prognosis.
In our included studies, NAC agents varied greatly, but
most of them were cisplatin-based. In the SNAP01 study,
Buda et al. compared a three-drug [paclitaxel, ifosfamide,
and cisplatin (TIP)] with a two-drug [ifosfamide and cis-
platin (IP)] regimen followed by radical surgery in patients
with locally advanced squamous cell cervical carcinoma.
The results showed the TIP regimen is associated with a
higher response rate (residual disease \3 mm stromal
invasion) than the IP regimen (48 vs. 23 %; OR 3.22; 95 %
CI 1.69–5.88; P = 0.0003), without a statistically signifi-
cant effect on OS (HR 0.66; 95 % CI 0.39–1.10; P = 0.11)
(Buda et al. 2005). No other randomized controlled clinical
trials compared the effect of different NAC agents. In our
included studies, NAC cycles ranged 2–6. Exist evidence
showed chemotherapy cycle lengths of 14 days and shorter
HR 0.83 (95 % CI 0.69–1.00; P = 0.046) or cisplatin dose
intensities greater than or equal to 25 mg/m2 per week (HR
0.91; 95 % CI 0.78–1.05; P = 0.20) tended to show an
advantage for NAC on survival. In contrast, trials using
cycle lengths longer than 14 days (HR 1.25; 95 % CI
1.07–1.46; P = 0.005) or cisplatin dose intensities lower
than 25 mg/m2 per week (HR 1.35; 95 % CI 1.11–1.14;
P = 0.002) tended to show a detrimental effect of NAC
(2003) on survival. However, new randomized controlled
clinical trials are needed to assess different NAC agents,
cycle lengths, and dose intensities.
Our meta-analysis only compared NAC responders with
nonresponders for long-term prognosis. Hu et al. also
compared NAC–nonresponders with primary surgery
treatment. They found the 5-year DFS rate was 70 % and
5-year OS rate 68.9 % in the clinical nonresponders

Table 4 Pooled OR of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared NAC responders with nonresponders in sensitivity
analysis
Outcomes 1-year 2-year 3-year 5-year

PFS (95 % CI) 6.671 (3.489–12.754) 5.645 (3.515–9.065) 5.517 (3.299–9.225) 5.052 (3.198–7.980)
OS (95 % CI) 7.478 (3.324–16.824) 8.158 (4.532–14.685) 7.379 (4.255–12.795) 4.536 (2.936–7.007)

123
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2013) 139:1887–1898 1895

subgroup. The prognosis outcomes were poorer in NAC– Study %

nonresponders compared with primary surgery treatment ID OR (95% CI) Weight

(P \ 0.05) (Hu et al. 2012). Chen et al. (2008) also

Shoji T, 2013 1.88 (0.25, 14.08) 6.66
reported NAC–nonresponders decreased the tumor-free Li R, 2013 4.34 (1.16, 16.23) 9.20
survival compared with primary surgery, although no sig- Robova H, 2013 5.56 (2.02, 15.26) 12.55

nificant difference was detected by log-rank test. The poor Hu T, 2012 9.34 (5.32, 16.39) 31.18
Xiong Y, 2011 6.18 (1.73, 22.03) 8.77
prognosis outcome may be due to delays of surgery. These Huang X, 2011 7.69 (1.25, 47.22) 2.94
results suggest that early surgery should be conducted in Park JS, 2011 6.90 (1.68, 28.41) 6.68

non-NAC responders for avoiding the delay of effective Kumar JV, 2009 27.65 (1.53, 499.14) 1.74
Choi CH, 2008 7.13 (0.36, 142.56) 2.39
treatment.
Chen H, 2008 11.50 (3.07, 43.05) 5.85
Hu et al. (2012) reported patients with earlier FIGO Chen CA, 2002 0.92 (0.16, 5.49) 12.04

stage or smaller tumor size have a better clinical response Overall (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.461) 6.80 (4.72, 9.80) 100.00

(P \ 0.001). While Chen et al. (2008) found squamous

tumors showed a more favorable response rate than non- .002 1 499

squamous tumors (76.7 vs. 33.3 %, P = 0.005). In our

Fig. 5 Pooled OR of 2-year progression-free survival compared
meta-analysis, we did not conduct the subgroup analysis by NAC responders with nonresponders
FIGO stage, tumor size, or histology because the included
studies did not provide enough data. However, no hetero-
geneity was found between the studies in our meta-ana- Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits
lysis. It seems NAC responders before surgery have

0
favorable prognosis regardless of FIGO stage, tumor size,
and histology. This conclusion should be confirmed by new .5

prospective studies.
se(logOR)

There are some limitations in this meta-analysis. First,

some of the included studies did not provide sufficient data
1

of time-to-event outcomes for meta-analysis directly. We

used Engauge Digitizer to extract data from survival
curves, which may result in inaccurate data. Second,
1.5

although no significant publication bias was found in the

0 10 20 30
meta-analysis, we only searched through English-language OR
reports, and it may have missed studies in our literature
Fig. 6 The funnel plot of meta-analysis for 2-year progression-free
review.
survival compared NAC responders with nonresponders
Despite of these limitations, our meta-analysis confirms
that response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an indicator
for PFS and overall survival, and suggests that patients-
achieving response of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before Study %

surgery predicts favorable prognosis for cervical cancer ID OR (95% CI) Weight

patients.
Shoji T, 2013 2.55 (0.23, 27.71) 4.44

Li R, 2013 4.34 (1.16, 16.23) 8.92

Acknowledgments This paper is dedicated to my wife’s mother. Robova H, 2013 4.67 (1.82, 11.99) 15.48
Two months ago, she was diagnosed with stage IIB cervical cancer Hu T, 2012 7.46 (4.51, 12.33) 41.79
and was clinical responsible for cisplatin-based NAC. God Bless.
Park JS, 2011 5.00 (1.30, 19.30) 8.63

Kumar JV, 2009 49.37 (2.72, 894.79) 1.23

Conflict of interest The authors had no conflict of interest to
Choi CH, 2008 8.79 (0.44, 174.04) 2.17
declare in relation to this article.
Chen H, 2008 11.50 (3.07, 43.05) 5.67

Chen CA, 2002 0.92 (0.16, 5.49) 11.67

Overall (I-squared = 11.5%, p = 0.339) 6.33 (4.40, 9.10) 100.00

Appendix .00112 1 895

Fig. 7 Pooled OR of 3-year progression-free survival compared

See Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. NAC responders with nonresponders

123
1896 J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2013) 139:1887–1898

Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits

0 Study %
ID OR (95% CI) Weight

Shoji T, 2013 2.00 (0.14, 27.99) 8.81

Li R, 2013 19.27 (0.97, 381.29) 3.29
.5
se(logOR)

Robova H, 2013 19.59 (0.92, 418.77) 2.53

Hu T, 2012 4.51 (1.80, 11.33) 43.81
Xiong Y, 2011 4.00 (0.34, 46.95) 8.02
Huang X, 2011 21.00 (0.77, 571.90) 1.53
1

Mori T, 2010 8.33 (0.41, 170.67) 2.53

Selvaggi L, 2006 14.75 (1.62, 133.94) 3.03
Fuso L, 2005 77.31 (4.24, 1409.93) 1.93
Chen CA, 2002 0.43 (0.04, 5.35) 24.52
1.5

Overall (I-squared = 16.2%, p = 0.294) 6.18 (3.39, 11.26) 100.00

0 10 20 30 40 50
OR
.00071 1 1410

Fig. 8 The funnel plot of meta-analysis for 3-year progression-free

survival compared NAC responders with nonresponders Fig. 11 Pooled OR of 1-year overall survival compared NAC
responders with nonresponders

Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits

Study %

0
ID OR (95% CI) Weight

Shoji T, 2013 4.48 (0.21, 95.59) 1.91

.5
Li R, 2013 2.41 (0.76, 7.63) 11.92
Robova H, 2013 3.14 (1.29, 7.67) 16.76
se(logOR)

Hu T, 2012 5.43 (3.39, 8.70) 42.90

1

Park JS, 2011 5.81 (1.44, 23.36) 5.93

Gadducci A, 2010 20.83 (3.58, 121.13) 1.98
Kumar JV, 2009 49.37 (2.72, 894.79) 0.94
1.5

Choi CH, 2008 8.79 (0.44, 174.04) 1.66

Chen H, 2008 7.58 (2.43, 23.65) 7.09
Chen CA, 2002 0.92 (0.16, 5.49) 8.92
Overall (I-squared = 24.2%, p = 0.221) 5.21 (3.75, 7.25) 100.00
2

0 20 40 60 80
.00112 1 895 OR

Fig. 9 Pooled OR of 5-year progression-free survival compared Fig. 12 The funnel plot of meta-analysis for 1-year overall survival
NAC responders with nonresponders compared NAC responders with nonresponders

Study %

Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits ID OR (95% CI) Weight
0

Shoji T, 2013 1.33 (0.17, 10.25) 13.05

Li R, 2013 38.65 (2.13, 702.59) 2.00
Robova H, 2013 8.92 (2.74, 29.08) 12.70
Hu T, 2012 11.41 (5.50, 23.67) 30.66
.5
se(logOR)

Xiong Y, 2011 16.82 (3.20, 88.51) 6.11

Huang X, 2011 41.36 (1.75, 977.56) 0.85
Mori T, 2010 4.00 (0.27, 58.56) 3.34
Cai HB, 2006 17.80 (0.66, 479.13) 1.16
1

Selvaggi L, 2006 25.50 (2.68, 242.30) 2.49

Fuso L, 2005 33.73 (4.02, 283.42) 3.43
Chen CA, 2002 0.27 (0.02, 2.90) 24.21
Overall (I-squared = 42.2%, p = 0.068) 9.16 (5.76, 14.55) 100.00
1.5

0 10 20 30 40 50
OR .00102 1 978

Fig. 10 The funnel plot of meta-analysis for 5-year progression-free Fig. 13 Pooled OR of 2-year overall survival compared NAC
survival compared NAC responders with nonresponders responders with nonresponders

123
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2013) 139:1887–1898 1897

Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits

0 Study %
ID OR (95% CI) Weight

Shoji T, 2013 5.72 (0.27, 120.33) 1.87

.5

Li R, 2013 4.34 (1.16, 16.23) 7.20

Robova H, 2013 3.93 (1.57, 9.84) 14.59
se(logOR)

Hu T, 2012 8.92 (5.28, 15.08) 28.47

1

Gadducci A, 2010 5.45 (1.22, 24.43) 5.75

Mori T, 2010 7.67 (0.77, 76.45) 1.50
Park DC, 2009 5.17 (0.36, 75.13) 1.21
1.5

Cai HB, 2006 13.67 (2.23, 83.94) 1.73

Selvaggi L, 2006 9.52 (1.04, 86.91) 2.35
Fuso L, 2005 17.11 (4.22, 69.45) 3.69
Chen CA, 2002 0.57 (0.08, 4.01) 10.15
2

MacLeod C, 2001 2.84 (1.13, 7.14) 21.49

0 10 20 30 40
Overall (I-squared = 24.8%, p = 0.200) 5.79 (4.12, 8.11) 100.00
OR

Fig. 14 The funnel plot of meta-analysis for 2-year overall survival .00831 1 120
compared NAC responders with nonresponders
Fig. 17 Pooled OR of 5-year overall survival compared NAC
responders with nonresponders

Study % Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits

0
ID OR (95% CI) Weight

Shoji T, 2013 4.00 (0.37, 43.14) 4.90

Li R, 2013 38.65 (2.13, 702.59) 1.51 .5
Robova H, 2013 4.95 (1.84, 13.32) 18.26
se(logOR)

Hu T, 2012 10.01 (5.72, 17.50) 40.02

Xiong Y, 2011 24.67 (4.67, 130.35) 3.76
Mori T, 2010 4.00 (0.27, 58.56) 2.51
Cai HB, 2006 25.80 (2.24, 297.58) 1.21
1

Selvaggi L, 2006 18.46 (1.98, 172.17) 2.43

Fuso L, 2005 12.57 (3.10, 51.02) 7.21
Chen CA, 2002 0.27 (0.02, 2.90) 18.19
1.5

Overall (I-squared = 37.6%, p = 0.108) 8.43 (5.67, 12.54) 100.00

0 5 10 15 20
.00142 1 703 OR

Fig. 15 Pooled OR of 3-year overall survival compared NAC Fig. 18 The funnel plot of meta-analysis for 5-year overall survival
responders with nonresponders compared NAC responders with nonresponders

References
Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits
Buda A, Fossati R, Colombo N, Fei F, Floriani I, Gueli Alletti D,
0

Katsaros D, Landoni F, Lissoni A, Malzoni C, Sartori E, Scollo

P, Torri V, Zola P, Mangioni C (2005) Randomized trial of
neoadjuvant chemotherapy comparing paclitaxel, ifosfamide,
and cisplatin with ifosfamide and cisplatin followed by radical
.5

surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell cervical

se(logOR)

carcinoma: the SNAP01 (Studio Neo-Adjuvante Portio) Italian

Collaborative Study. J Clin Oncol 23(18):4137–4145
Cai HB, Chen HZ, Yin HH (2006) Randomized study of preoperative
1

chemotherapy versus primary surgery for stage IB cervical

cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 32(3):315–323
Chen CA, Cheng WF, Wei LH, Su YN, Hsieh CY (2002) Radical
hysterectomy alone or combined with neoadjuvant chemother-
1.5

apy in the treatment of early stage bulky cervical carcinoma.

0 10 20 30 40 J Formos Med Assoc 101(3):195–202
OR Chen H, Liang C, Zhang L, Huang S, Wu X (2008) Clinical efficacy
of modified preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the
Fig. 16 The funnel plot of meta-analysis for 3-year overall survival treatment of locally advanced (stage IB2 to IIB) cervical cancer:
compared NAC responders with nonresponders randomized study. Gynecol Oncol 110(3):308–315

123
1898
Choi CH, Song SY, Choi JJ, Park YA, Kang H, Kim TJ, Lee JW,
Kim BG, Lee JH, Bae DS (2008) Prognostic significance of
VEGF expression in patients with bulky cervical carcinoma
undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. BMC Cancer 8:295.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18847499
Fuso L, Mazzola S, Marocco F, Ferrero A, Dompè D, Carus AP, Zola
P (2005) Pretreatment serum hemoglobin level as a predictive
factor of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with
locally advanced squamous cervical carcinoma: a preliminary
report. Gynecol Oncol 99(3 Suppl 1):S187–S191
Gadducci A, Cosio S, Zola P, Tisi G, Ferrero A, Piovano E, Cristofani
R, Greco C, Sartori E (2010a) Pretreatment platelet and
hemoglobin levels are neither predictive nor prognostic variables
for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with
neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical hysterectomy: a retro-
spective Italian study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20(8):1399–1404
Gadducci A, Fabrini MG, Perrone F, Manfredi B, Fanucchi A,
Laliscia C, Barsotti C, Scotti V, Genazzani AR, Greco C (2010b)
Pattern of failures and clinical outcome of patients with locally
advanced cervical cancer treated with a tailored integrated
therapeutic approach. Anticancer Res 30(9):3731–3735
Gong L, Lou JY, Wang P, Zhang JW, Liu H, Peng ZL (2012) Clinical
evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical
surgery in the management of stage IB2-IIB cervical cancer. Int J
Gynaecol Obstet 117(1):23–26
González-Martı́n A, González-Cortijo L, Carballo N, Garcia JF,
Lapuente F, Rojo A, Chiva LM (2008) The current role of
neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the management of cervical
carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 110(3 Suppl 2):S36–S40
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring
inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560
Hu T, Li S, Chen Y, Shen J, Li X, Huang K, Yang R, Wu L, Chen Z,
Jia Y, Wang S, Cheng X, Han X, Lin Z, Xing H, Qu P, Cai H,
Song X, Tian X, Xu H, Xu J, Zhang Q, Xi L, Deng D, Wang H,
Wang S, Lv W, Wang C, Xie X, Ma D (2012) Matched-case
comparison of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with FIGO
stage IB1-IIB cervical cancer to establish selection criteria. Eur J
Cancer 48(15):2353–2360
Huang X, Lan C, Huang H, Zhang Y, Huang H, Cao X, Huang Y,
Guo Y, Wan T, Liu J (2011) Neoadjuvant docetaxel combined
with cisplatin and followed by radical surgery for the treatment
of locally advanced (stage IB2–IIB) cervical cancer: preliminary
results of a single-institution experience. Expert Opin Pharmac-
other 12(2):165–173
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D (2011)
Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61(2):69–90
Kumar JV, Doval DC, Rao R, Rawal S (2009) A retrospective study
of patients with locally advanced cancer of the cervix treated
with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery. Int
J Gynecol Cancer 19(3):417–422
Li R, Lu ST, Si JG, Liu B, Wang H, Mei YY, Linghu H (2013)
Prognostic value of responsiveness of neoadjuvant chemother-
apy before surgery for patients with stage IB(2)/IIA(2) cervical
cancer. Gynecol Oncol 128(3):524–529
123
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2013) 139:1887–1898
MacLeod C, O’Donnell A, Tattersall MH, Dalrymple C, Firth I
(2001) Locally advanced cervix cancer: chemotherapy prior to
definitive surgery or radiotherapy. A single institutional expe-
rience. Australas Radiol 45(4):491–495
Mori T, Hosokawa K, Sawada M, Kuroboshi H, Tatsumi H, Koshiba
H, Okubo T, Kitawaki J (2010) Neoadjuvant weekly carboplatin
and paclitaxel followed by radical hysterectomy for locally
advanced cervical cancer: long-term results. Int J Gynecol
Cancer 20(4):611–616
NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines)
cervical cancer. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/
physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf. Assessed 25 July 2013
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer
Meta-analysis Collaboration (2003) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
for locally advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and
meta-analysis of individual patient data from 21 randomised
trials. Eur J Cancer 39(17):2470–2486
Park DC, Suh MJ, Yeo SG (2009) Neoadjuvant paclitaxel and
cisplatin in uterine cervical cancer: long-term results. Int J
Gynecol Cancer 19(5):943–947
Park JS, Jeon EK, Chun SH, Won HS, Lee A, Hur SY, Lee KH, Bae
SN, Yoon SC, Hong SH (2011) ERCC1 (excision repair cross-
complementation group 1) expression as a predictor for response
of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for FIGO stage 2B uterine cervix
cancer. Gynecol Oncol 120(2):275–279
Robova H, Rob L, Halaska MJ, Pluta M, Skapa P, Strnad P, Lisy J,
Komar M (2013) High-dose density neoadjuvant chemotherapy
in bulky IB cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 128(1):49–53
Rydzewska L, Tierney J, Vale CL, Symonds PR (2012) Neoadjuvant
chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery for cervical cancer.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD007406
Selvaggi L, Loizzi V, Di Gilio AR, Nardelli C, Cantatore C, Cormio
G (2006) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in cervical cancer: a 67
patients experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16(2):631–637
Shoji T, Takatori E, Saito T, Omi H, Kagabu M, Miura F, Takeuchi S,
Sugiyama T (2013) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy using platinum-
and taxane-based regimens for bulky stage Ib2 to IIb non-
squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Cancer Chemo-
ther Pharmacol 71(3):657–662
Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M,
Tugwell P (2013) The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for
assessing the quality of non-randomized studies in meta-
analysis. Ottawa Health Research Institute. Available from:
http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
Assessed 25 July 2013
Wiebe E, Denny L, Thomas G (2012) Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J
Gynaecol Obstet 119(Suppl 2):S100–S109
Xiong Y, Liang LZ, Cao LP, Min Z, Liu JH (2011) Clinical effects of
irinotecan hydrochloride in combination with cisplatin as
neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer.
Gynecol Oncol 123(1):99–104