Table 1.

HT in patients with cervical cancers. Summary of articles reviewed.

Author	Article Type	Investigation	Total Participants	Survival Outcome
Lutgens et al., 2010 [22]	Cochrane Systemic Review	HT + RT vs. RT alone in LACC	N = 487 (6 RCTs)	Improved CR, local recurrence rate, and better OS (HR 0.67; p = 0.05).
Datta et al., 2016 [29]	NMA	HT + RT+/−CT vs. RT+/−CT in LACC	N = 1160 (16 RCTs)	HT + RT was superior to RT alone in CR and LRC. Non-significant OS benefit. HT + CTRT resulted in best SUCRA score.
Datta et al., 2019 [30]	NMA	Compared across 13 interventional options in LACC	N = 9894 (59 RCTs)	Top 3 interventions by SUCRA: LRC: HT + RT, CTRT + adjCT and HT + CTRT. OS: CTRT (3-weekly CDDP), HT + CTRT and CTRT (non-CDDP). Cumulative: HT + RT, HT + CTRT and CTRT.
Minnaar et al., 2019 [36,37]	Phase III RCT	mEHT + CTRT vs. CTRT in LACC	N = 210	Better 6-month LDC; 2- and 3-year DFS. No OS benefit (except for FIGO III). Better QoL data with mEHT.
Yea et al., 2021 [34]	Meta-analysis	HT + CTRT vs. CTRT in LACC	N = 536 (2 RCTs)	Improved OS (HR 0.67; p = 0.03). No LRFS benefit.
Lee et al., 2017 [40]	Prospective comparative trial	mEHT + CT vs. CT in recurrent cervical cancer	N = 38	ORR improved. No OS benefit.