Abstract: We included seven RCTs (1217 women) of varying methodological quality in the review; most trials were at moderate or high risk of bias. Three were multi-centre trials, two were single-centre trials, and in two trials it was unclear if they were single or multi-centre. These trials compared the following interventions for women with locally advanced cervical cancer (stages IB2 to III): hysterectomy (simple or radical) with radiotherapy (N = 194) versus radiotherapy alone (N = 180); hysterectomy (simple or radical) with chemoradiotherapy (N = 31) versus chemoradiotherapy alone (N = 30); hysterectomy (radical) with chemoradiotherapy (N = 111) versus internal radiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy (N = 100); hysterectomy (simple or radical) with upfront (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy (N = 298) versus radiotherapy alone (N = 273). One trial (N = 256) found no difference in the risk of death or disease progression between women who received attenuated radiotherapy followed by hysterectomy and those who received radiotherapy (external and internal) alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.29). This trial also reported no difference between the two groups in terms of adverse effects (18/129 grade 3 or 4 adverse effects in the hysterectomy and radiation group and 19 cases in 18/121 women in the radiotherapy alone group). There was no difference in 5-year tumour-free actuarial survival (representation of the probable years of survivorship of a defined population of participants) or severe complications (grade 3) in another trial (N = 118) which reported the same comparison (6/62 versus 6/56 in the radiation with surgery group versus the radiotherapy alone group, respectively). The quality of the evidence was low for all these outcomes. One trial (N = 61) reported no difference (P value > 0.10) in overall and recurrence-free survival at 3 years between chemoradiotherapy and hysterectomy versus chemoradiotherapy alone (low quality evidence). Adverse events and morbidity data were not reported. Similarly, another trial (N = 211) found no difference in the risk of death (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.21, P value = 0.19, low quality evidence), disease progression (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.34, P value = 0.24, low quality evidence) or severe late complications (P value = 0.53, low quality evidence) between women who received internal radiotherapy versus hysterectomy after both groups had received external-beam chemoradiotherapy. Meta analysis of three trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone, assessing 571 participants, found that women who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus hysterectomy had less risk of death than those who received radiotherapy alone (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93, I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence). However, a significant number of the participants that received neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus hysterectomy had radiotherapy as well. There was no difference in the proportion of women with disease progression or recurrence between the two groups (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.05, I2 = 20%, moderate quality evidence). Results of single trials reported no apparent (P value > 0.05) difference in long-term severe complications, grade 3 acute toxicity and severe late toxicity between the two groups (low quality evidence). Quality of life outcomes were not reported in any of the trials. From the available RCTs, we found insufficient evidence that hysterectomy with radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, improves the survival of women with locally advanced cervical cancer who are treated with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy alone. The overall quality of the evidence was variable across the different outcomes and was universally downgraded due to concerns about risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone for survival outcomes was moderate, with evidence from other comparisons of low quality. This was mainly based on poor reporting and sparseness of data where results were based on single trials. More trials that assess medical management with and without hysterectomy may test the robustness of the findings of this review as further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Plain-language summary: Two studies, including 374 women, compared preoperative radiotherapy and hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone, but only one trial reported overall survival, with no difference between the groups. These studies found no difference in the risk of disease progression (or death) or five-year tumour-free survival. One study, including 61 women, reported no difference in overall and recurrence-free survival between chemotherapy and hysterectomy versus chemoradiotherapy alone. Another study comparing internal radiotherapy (brachytherapy) versus hysterectomy in 211 women who received chemoradiotherapy found no difference in the risk of death or disease progression. By combining results from three of the independent studies that assessed 571 women, we found that fewer women who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus hysterectomy died than those who received radiotherapy alone. However, many women in the first group also had radiotherapy. There was no difference in the number of women who were disease-free after treatment. Adverse events were incompletely reported. Results of single trials showed no differences in severe adverse events between the two groups in any comparison. Limited data suggested that the interventions appeared to be reasonably well tolerated, although more evidence is needed. Quality of life measures were not reported. We found insufficient evidence that hysterectomy added to radiation and chemoradiation improved survival, quality of life or adverse events in locally advanced cervical cancer compared with medical treatment alone. Overall, the quality of the evidence was variable and was universally downgraded due to concerns about risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone for survival outcomes was moderate, with evidence from other comparisons being of low quality. Further data from carefully planned trials assessing medical management with and without hysterectomy are likely to impact on how confident we are about these findings.