Additional file 1 of Propensity score-matched analysis of systemic chemotherapy versus salvage hysterectomy for persistent cervical cancer after definitive radiotherapy/concurrent chemoradiotherapy

Field: Medicine (Health Sciences)

Additional file 1 : Figure A1. Propensity score distributions (A) before matching, and (B) after matching. HT, hysterectomy; CT, chemotherapy. Figure A1A demonstrates an initial dissimilarity across the two cohorts on the basis of the propensity score distributions. However, after matching, the distributions of the propensity score for the two cohorts (supplementary Figure A1B) were quite homogenous. This demonstrates that the propensity score model was able to achieve balance. Note: Propensity score-matching was performed using a 1:1 matching with replacement, with a caliper width equal to 0.2 of the standard deviation of logit of propensity. In this matching system, some subjects could be restored and extracted. Figure A2. Distribution of patients in the HT cohort classified by residual tumor status after hysterectomy. R0 group, patients with no macroscopic residual tumor; R1 group, patients with macroscopic residual tumor after salvage hysterectomy; pathological R0 group, patients in whom complete macroscopic or microscopic resection was obtained; non-pathological R0 group, patients with no macroscopic tumor after salvage hysterectomy, but in whom microscopic residual tumors could be detected.Figure A3. ROC analysis indicated that the cut-off values of the diameter for persistent tumors were 40 mm for R0 resection (A) and 11 mm for pathological R0 resection (B). Figure A4. Survival comparison using propensity matched data between salvage HT and systemic CT for patients with persistent cervical cancer after RT/CCRT. Patients with stage IB1 and IVA malignancies were excluded from the analysis. Figure A5. Survival comparison using propensity matched data between salvage HT and systemic CT for patients with persistent cervical cancer after RT/CCRT. Patients who did not undergo intracavity brachytherapy were excluded from the analysis. Figure A6. Survival comparison using propensity matched data between salvage HT and systemic CT for patients with persistent cervical cancer after RT/CCRT. Patients who had experienced crossover treatments were excluded from the analysis. Figure A7. Survival comparison using propensity matched data between salvage HT and systemic CT. Patients were divide into two groups according to whether imaging after definitive RT/CCRT revealed a residual lymph node tumor or not. Figure A8. Survival comparison using propensity matched data between salvage HT and systemic CT. Patients were divide into two groups according to whether imaging after definitive RT/CCRT revealed a residual cervical cancer or not. Figure A9. Survival comparison of patients in the systemic CT group, which was subdivided into 3 groups according to their response of each patient to chemotherapy (data are from the original data set). Table A1. Summary of treatments received. Table A2. Adverse events for systemic chemotherapy. Table A3. Evaluation of CT, MRI and PET-CT for persistent tumors after definitive RT/CCRT. Table A4. Sites of progressive disease after salvage HT or systemic CT. Table A5. Participating institutions and sample size.