You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Current Oncology
Download PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

1 January 2026

Is Moderately Hypofractionated Radiotherapy a Safe and Effective Strategy for Cervical Cancer?—A Review of Current Evidence

,
,
,
,
,
,
and
Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Curr. Oncol.2026, 33(1), 24;https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol33010024 
(registering DOI)
This article belongs to the Section Gynecologic Oncology
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Simple Summary

Cervical cancer remains a significant public health burden, especially in low- and middle-income countries where access to treatment is constrained. Conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) entails protracted treatment schedules and places considerable demands on both patients and healthcare systems. In contrast, moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) offers a shorter course and has shown promising short- to mid-term efficacy. This approach may improve patient adherence and reduce resource utilization in settings with limited resources. However, given that the current evidence predominantly originates from small or early-phase studies, the long-term efficacy and safety of this approach remain unproven. Consequently, MHRT cannot yet supplant CFRT as the standard of care. Larger, high-quality trials with prolonged follow-up periods, encompassing diverse populations and technologies, are essential.

Abstract

Cervical cancer (CC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), despite advancements in HPV vaccination and screening. Radiotherapy (RT) plays a critical role in managing CC, but conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) is limited by long treatment durations, which reduce patient adherence, increase the risk of treatment interruptions, and impair healthcare access in LMICs. Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) may offer a promising alternative, delivering higher doses per fraction with fewer total fractions, thus shortening treatment duration and alleviating the burden on both patients and healthcare systems. Early clinical data suggest that MHRT achieve acceptable short- to medium-term tumor control with manageable toxicity. However, the small sample sizes and limited follow-up in published studies preclude definitive conclusions about long-term efficacy and safety. This review synthesizes the existing clinical evidence to outline the potential benefits and inherent limitations of MHRT in CC management and highlight the need for future large-scale, long-term randomized controlled trials with rigorous quality assurance protocols. These findings also have implications for the potential implementation of MHRT in LMICs.

1. Introduction

Cervical cancer (CC) is one of the most common malignancies of the female reproductive system worldwide and continues to be a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where access to prevention and treatment remains limited, despite efforts to reduce the disease burden in some regions through HPV vaccination and screening programs [1,2,3]. Radiotherapy (RT), encompassing external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT), plays a critical role in managing CC across all stages of the disease [4,5]. In early-stage disease, definitive RT yields comparable outcomes to surgery [6,7]. For locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC), concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) remains the standard of care [8]. In metastatic cases, systemic therapy combined with palliative RT is employed to manage symptoms [9]. Therefore, optimizing RT strategies is of significant importance in mitigating the global disease burden of cervical cancer. Conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) remains the most commonly used approach, typically delivering 45–50.4 Gy in 25 to 28 fractions over 5 to 6 weeks. Although the efficacy of CFRT has been validated through decades of clinical practice, its limitations have become increasingly apparent in modern practice. CFRT’s prolonged 5–6-week course (25–28 fractions) presents dual challenges: for patients, it increases economic and time burdens and the risk of treatment interruptions—particularly in remote areas with limited RT access; for resource-constrained healthcare systems, it strains RT equipment capacity, extends patient wait times, and may exacerbate the risk of tumor progression. Collectively, these challenges represent significant barriers to improving CC care globally [10,11,12].
In recent years, the widespread adoption of precision RT technologies such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), combined with a deeper understanding of tumor radiobiology, has led to the optimization of RT fractionation regimens as a significant breakthrough in research [13,14]. Among these, hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) has become a central focus in tumor radiation oncology research due to its non-inferior clinical efficacy in certain tumor types and shorter treatment duration [15,16,17]. Based on the single-fraction dose, HFRT can be categorized into two types: (i) moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT), which delivers 2.1–4.9 Gy per fraction, and (ii) ultrahypofractionated RT—most commonly exemplified by stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)—characterized by a single-fraction dose ≥ 5 Gy [18]. These modalities differ significantly in their application to CC. Due to its high single-fraction dose and strict requirements for dose gradients in normal tissues, SBRT is currently limited to exploratory salvage treatment for locally recurrent and oligometastatic lesions in CC, resulting in a narrower range of clinical applications [19,20,21]. In contrast, MHRT delivers a more moderate single fraction dose, with improved dose delivery control and enhanced normal tissue tolerance, and its application potential in cervical cancer treatment arguably warrants further exploration.
Accordingly, researchers have attempted to apply MHRT in the management of CC [22]. Current evidence primarily derives from small-sample studies. While its clinical application is expanding and the evidence base continues to grow, key controversies persist. First, regarding MHRT-related toxicities, conflicting results remain: some studies suggest that higher single-fraction doses increase the risk of organ damage, while others indicate that precision RT techniques can effectively mitigate these toxicities [23,24]. A critical gap in this debate is the lack of long-term safety data: most MHRT toxicity studies have follow-up periods of less than five years, and evidence for efficacy and safety beyond this timeframe remains limited. Second, there is no consensus on which CC patient populations are eligible for MHRT, with uncertainty regarding its applicability to all patient groups [24].
Therefore, this article presents a systematic review of research findings associated with MHRT in CC, summarizes the ongoing clinical trials, offers a comprehensive analysis of the principal challenges linked to this therapeutic approach, and provides insights into its future development based on current evidence.

2. Methods

2.1. Data Sources and Search Strategy

To systematically identify high quality evidence on MHRT for CC, we conducted a structured search of published clinical studies and ongoing or registered trials. Three core databases were searched: PubMed, Google Scholar (first 200 relevant results), and the Web of Science Core Collection. Information on ongoing trials was retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov. The search strategy used Boolean operators and combined Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) with free text terms to capture relevant disease and intervention synonyms. Core terms included “Uterine Cervical Neoplasms” [MeSH], “Radiotherapy, Hypofractionated” [MeSH], “cervical cancer,” and “moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy.” A representative search string was: (“Uterine Cervical Neoplasms” [MeSH] OR cervical carcinoma) AND (moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy OR moderate hypofractionation radiotherapy). Searches covered each database from inception to 1 October 2025. Studies published after 2020 were prioritized, while seminal earlier trials were retained to ensure continuity of evidence.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

2.2.1. Inclusion Criteria

Literature must meet all the following criteria simultaneously:
  • Enrolled patients with CC;
  • The study explicitly adopted an MHRT regimen (per-fraction radiation dose: 2.1–4.9 Gy), with comprehensive reporting of dosimetric parameters, treatment-related toxicities, and efficacy endpoint data;
  • The literature type was restricted to original research published in peer-reviewed journals or clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Completed registered trials with unreported endpoint data were also included to facilitate the analysis of study design characteristics and research field development trends;
  • The literature was published in English.

2.2.2. Exclusion Criteria

Literature was excluded if it met any of the following criteria:
  • Unextractable data: Outcome data pertaining to CC patients undergoing MHRT could not be separately extracted from other study cohorts;
  • Lack of clinical outcomes: Basic studies focusing exclusively on dosimetry, RT planning, or physics-based simulations, which failed to provide patient follow-up data or clinical endpoint indicators (excluding ongoing trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov);
  • Duplicate publications: Among duplicate publications derived from the same patient cohort, the one with the largest sample size, longest follow-up duration, and most comprehensive outcome indicators was prioritized;
  • Non-core evidence types: Single-case reports (n = 1), narrative reviews, systematic reviews, expert consensuses, methodological papers, conference abstracts, animal studies, in vitro cell studies, and pure modeling studies. These types of literature were only used as background references and excluded from the core evidence synthesis.

2.3. Study Selection and Data Extraction

Study selection followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines, with two independent reviewers screening and cross validating records. Titles and abstracts were screened first, and potentially eligible studies underwent full text review. Disagreements were resolved by consultation with a senior radiation oncologist. The initial search yielded 43 records, including 33 journal articles and 10 ClinicalTrials.gov trials. After eligibility assessment, 15 records were included, comprising 5 published studies and 10 registered trials. Data from published studies were extracted using a validated standardized form, including study design, sample size, baseline characteristics, MHRT parameters, concurrent or adjuvant therapy, follow up duration, toxicity outcomes, and efficacy outcomes. For registered trials, we extracted intervention details, prespecified endpoints, planned sample size, and anticipated completion dates.

2.4. Data Synthesis and Statistical Methods

Heterogeneity assessment indicated substantial clinical and methodological variability across studies, precluding the assumptions required for meta analysis. Therefore, we did not perform quantitative pooling and instead conducted a qualitative synthesis of study characteristics and key findings.

3. Clinical Application of MHRT in CC

In recent years, MHRT has increasingly garnered significant clinical interest as a therapeutic strategy for CC. Research teams worldwide have conducted many clinical trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of various MHRT regimens, which differ in fraction dose, total dose, treatment modality, and the inclusion of CCRT. Despite these variations, all trials primarily aim to explore the clinical feasibility of MHRT in the management of CC. This section synthesizes the existing clinical evidence on MHRT for CC, focusing on key regimen-specific differences in efficacy, toxicity profiles, and clinical applicability. The characteristics and outcomes of these studies are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Key Information Summary of Studies of MHRT-Related Studies for CC.

3.1. The Existing Evidence: Efficacy and Safety of MHRT in CC

3.1.1. MHRT in Definitive RT for CC

The Indian team led by Mallum A. et al. conducted a prospective trial at Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital, South Africa (March 2022–March 2023), to compare MHRT with CFRT in patients with LACC (FIGO stage IB3–IVA) in a resource-limited setting [25]. A total of 107 patients were randomized to one of two treatment arms: MHRT (42.72 Gy in 16 fractions; n = 53) administered without concurrent cisplatin to minimize treatment-related toxicity, or CFRT (50.5 Gy in 25 fractions; n = 54) delivered with concurrent weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2). Both groups subsequently underwent high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) (18 Gy/2f or 21 Gy/3f). MHRT significantly reduced the median treatment duration compared with CFRT (35 vs. 62 days, p < 0.001). CFRT was associated with higher rates of grade II gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (45.8% vs. 33.6%, p < 0.001), genitourinary (GU) toxicity (43.9% vs. 36.5%, p = 0.01), vaginal stenosis (26.2% vs. 21.5%), and radiation-induced proctitis (21.5% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.02). No grade IV toxicities were reported. Clinical outcomes were comparable between the two groups, including 6-month complete clinical response (CCR) (35.8% vs. 32.9%), 12-month recurrence-free survival (RFS) (38.3% vs. 42.1%), and residual disease rates (13.1% vs. 10.3%). These findings indicate that MHRT offers efficacy equivalent to CFRT while reducing treatment duration and toxicity, supporting its feasibility as a cost-effective treatment strategy for CC in resource-limited settings in Sub-Saharan Africa.
In addition to studies conducted in India under resource-limited conditions, the HYPOCx-iRex Trial, carried out by the Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand, is a Phase II, open-label, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MHRT (HYPO arm: 44 Gy in 20 fractions) versus CFRT (CVRT arm: 45 Gy in 25 fractions) in patients with LACC. Both arms were administered concurrent weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2 for 5 cycles) plus image-guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT), though the specific IGABT fractionation regimen has not been reported in the study [26]. Initially, patients with ≥3 positive pelvic lymph nodes or pathologic lymph nodes at and/or above the common iliac region were excluded; however, acceptable toxicity in the interim analysis allowed an amendment to extend the exclusion limit of metastatic disease to beyond the L2/3 intervertebral disk level. A total of 40 patients were enrolled, with 21 allocated to the MHRT arm and 19 to the CFRT arm. The median follow-up period was 19 months. The overall treatment time (OTT) was significantly shorter in the MHRT arm than in the CFRT arm (39 vs. 47 days, p < 0.001). Regarding acute and 18-month late GI toxicities (grade ≥2/≥3), the MHRT arm showed a trend toward higher rates than the CFRT arm (acute: 43%/29% vs. 32%/11%, p = 0.53/0.24; late: 26.2%/21.2% vs. 20.6%/14.4%, p = 0.537/0.438), although the differences were not statistically significant. No grade ≥ 3 GU toxicity was observed in either arm. Quality of life (QOL) scores were lower in the MHRT arm during treatment but returned to baseline within 3 months after RT. Additionally, the MHRT arm showed a trend toward superior locoregional control, with a significantly higher 24-month para-aortic control rate compared with the CFRT arm (100% vs. 71.2%, p = 0.003), while no significant differences in local control or overall survival (OS) were observed between the two groups. In conclusion, MHRT appears feasible for treating LACC. MHRT significantly reduces OTT, exhibits acceptable toxicity, and provides promising locoregional control, although the observed trends in toxicity require further validation.
Although promising results from prospective studies have highlighted the potential of MHRT for CC, not all applications have met expectations. A phase II randomized controlled trial (NCT04831437), led by the Iranian team under Dr. Afsane Maddah Safaei, provides important insights into the risks associated with MHRT. The trial enrolled 59 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 stage IIA–IIIC1 CC (stage IIIC1 patients with more than three MRI-determined lymphadenopathies and/or with at least one lymph node with a short-axis diameter of 3 cm and/or lymphadenopathy located in the common iliac chains were excluded.), comparing MHRT (40 Gy/15 fractions) with CFRT (45 Gy/25 fractions) [23]. The MHRT arm (n = 29) received 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with the MHRT regimen, concurrently with three weekly cycles of cisplatin (40 mg/m2); stage IIIC1 patients additionally received an 8 Gy boost in 3 fractions to gross lymphadenopathies. The CFRT arm (n = 30) received 3D-CRT with the standard CFRT dose, up to five weekly cycles of cisplatin (40 mg/m2), and a 9 Gy boost in 5 fractions to positive lymph node in stage IIIC1 disease. Both groups subsequently received intravaginal brachytherapy (28 Gy in 4 weekly fractions) beginning one week after chemoradiotherapy, with the MHRT arm showing a significantly shorter overall treatment time (59.6 ± 14.5 days vs. 74.8 ± 10.9 days, p = 0.0001). Interim results revealed no significant difference in the primary endpoint—3-month CCR—between the MHRT and CFRT arms: 65.5% (19/29) vs. 66.7% (20/30), respectively (absolute difference 0.011; 95% CI, −0.23 to 0.25; p = 0.13), thereby failing to meet the predefined 15% non-inferiority margin. An unplanned subgroup analysis suggested that tumor size influenced MHRT efficacy: patients with a maximum tumor dimension (Dmax) ≤ 5 cm tended to achieve higher CCR rates with MHRT, whereas those with Dmax > 5 cm achieved better outcomes with CFRT (interaction p = 0.02). Regarding safety, the MHRT arm exhibited a significantly higher incidence of acute grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity (27.6% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.032), primarily severe diarrhea, whereas no significant differences were observed in grade ≥ 3 GU, hematologic, skin toxicities, or acute kidney injury between the two arms. The increased GI toxicity in the MHRT arm was attributed to two factors: (1) both arms employed three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), resulting in a bowel volume receiving 45 Gy (V45Gy) that was about twice the QUANTEC-recommended 195 cc; and (2) the higher per-fraction dose in the MHRT arm (~2.67 Gy vs. 1.8 Gy in CFRT). Evidence from multiple clinical studies confirms that intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) affords superior sparing of organs at risk compared with 3D-CRT. The trial is ongoing with protocol modifications, including the replacement of 3D-CRT with IMRT to improve organ-at-risk sparing and limiting enrollment to patients with Dmax ≤ 5 cm, aiming to further evaluate the non-inferiority and safety of MHRT.

3.1.2. Postoperative Adjuvant RT for CC

Beyond its role in definitive RT, MHRT has also been explored as a postoperative adjuvant RT option in CC. A Korean research team conducted the POHIM-RT trial, a phase II non-randomized multicenter study (NCT03239626), aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of MHRT (40 Gy/16 fractions) in postoperative CC patients [27]. This study excluded chemotherapy to minimize its potential interference with toxicity responses. The trial results showed that only 1 patient (1.6%) developed acute ≥grade 3 toxicity (sigmoid colon perforation), which was likely attributed to pre-existing mild intestinal damage rather than high-dose RT. During a median follow-up of 39.5 months, no late toxicities of grade ≥ 3 were observed, and the 3-year DFS rate was 87.1%. However, due to its non-randomized design and small sample size, further phase III trials are required to validate long-term outcomes.
The institution also designed the POHIM-CCRT study (NCT03239613), which focuses on high-risk postoperative patients requiring CCRT (Brachytherapy boost was permitted in the protocol, but extended field radiation, including para-aortic areas, was not allowed). The intervention group received MHRT (40 Gy/16 fractions) plus chemotherapy (9 patients optionally received BT boost with 10–15 Gy in 2–3 fractions) [28]. The median follow-up time was 43 months, and the results revealed that only 2 cases (2.5%) of grade 3 or higher acute adverse events occurred, primarily GI and hematological toxicities. The study also reported that the 3-year DFS rate was 79.3%, and the OS rate was 98.0%. The findings of this multicenter Phase II single-arm trial indicate that postoperative MHRT, in combination with concurrent chemotherapy, is safe and well-tolerated in women with CC. Additional studies are needed to evaluate long-term toxicities and oncological outcomes with prolonged follow-up.

5. Discussion

MHRT is being explored as a potential therapeutic strategy for CC, shortening the total treatment course and optimizing healthcare resource utilization. Early evidence from small cohorts with limited follow-up suggests that acute toxicities associated with MHRT are manageable and generally well tolerated in clinical practice. However, major unresolved controversies persist, including uncertainties regarding radiobiological feasibility, scarce data in high-risk patient populations, methodological limitations and evidence gaps, and variability in technical resources. This review systematically summarizes the current clinical application of MHRT in CC, discusses core controversies and future development directions, and aims to provide a reference for evidence-based and context-appropriate clinical practice and exploration.

5.1. Radiobiological Feasibility of MHRT in CC

Radiobiological feasibility is central to evaluating MHRT in CC. Dose–response under fractionation is commonly described by the linear–quadratic (LQ) model: S = e^(−αD − βD2). The α/β ratio is a key determinant of fractionation sensitivity: lower values favor hypofractionation, while higher values align with CFRT [39,40]. Squamous cell carcinoma, the predominant histotype in CC, was traditionally assigned an α/β ratio of ~10 Gy (less favorable for hypofractionation), but emerging data reveal biological heterogeneity with reported values ranging from 4 to 10 Gy—supporting a rationale for MHRT, though the true α/β distribution and its clinical implications still require further investigation [41].
Quantitative comparison via LQ-derived equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2, EQD2 = D × (d + α/β)/(2 + α/β); D = total dose, d = single-fraction dose) reveals non-trivial EQD2 reductions with MHRT for early-responding tissues. For late-reacting tissues (α/β = 3 Gy), CFRT (45–50.4 Gy in 25–28 fractions) yields an EQD2 of 43.2–48.4 Gy versus 44.0 Gy for MHRT (40 Gy in 16 fractions). For early-reacting tissues (α/β = 10 Gy), CFRT’s EQD2 is 44.3–49.5 Gy versus 41.7 Gy for MHRT, which may translate into a risk of inferior local control, particularly in biologically aggressive disease.
Notably, accelerated tumor repopulation in CC initiates ~19 days (range 11–22 days) post-RT [42]. Clinical data show a median OTT of 59 days, with only 38.2% of patients completing treatment within 56 days [43]; each 1-day OTT prolongation correlates with a 0.8% decrease in 3-year OS and 1.0% reduction in pelvic control [43,44]. By shortening overall treatment time and modestly increasing dose per fraction, MHRT could narrow the window for accelerated repopulation and partly compensate for lower EQD2; however, the magnitude of this trade-off remains uncertain. Future optimization of dose-fractionation parameters should integrate tumor proliferation kinetics and individual biological characteristics.

5.2. Limited Evidence in High-Risk Populations

Most exploratory MHRT studies used stringent eligibility criteria. High-risk features (bulky tumors ≥ 5 cm, multiple nodal metastases, or para-aortic/common iliac involvement) were typically excluded, leaving limited real-world evidence and constraining generalizability. Key trial examples illustrate this limitation: the Thai HYPOCx-iRex trial initially excluded patients with ≥3 positive pelvic nodes or common iliac/para-aortic metastases (later amending exclusion to lesions above L2/3) [26]; the Korean POHIM-CCRT study (NCT03239613) prohibited para-aortic extended-field RT [28]; and an Iranian randomized trial excluded stage IIIC1 patients with >3 positive nodes, nodal short-axis ≥ 3 cm, or common iliac involvement [23]. The Iranian study further highlighted MHRT’s limitations in high-risk patients: for tumors > 5 cm, the CR rate was 37.5% in the MHRT group versus 69.2% in the CFRT group (p < 0.05), creating a clinical dilemma in identifying beneficiaries versus those at risk of undertreatment/overtreatment. Mechanistically, high-risk features conflict with MHRT’s profile: multiple nodal metastases expand target volumes, increasing normal tissue (small intestine, bone marrow) exposure—exacerbated by MHRT’s higher single-fraction dose—while pelvic/para-aortic involvement requires renal hilum-level fields, elevating dose to critical organs (kidneys, spinal cord). With few studies conducting stratified analyses for high-risk factors, MHRT’s performance across risk strata remains unclear. Until prospective subgroup data are available, MHRT in high-risk disease should be restricted to clinical trials or carefully selected patients with robust image-guided planning and brachytherapy support.

5.3. Research Design Limitations and Evidence Gaps

Current MHRT studies in CC suffer from protocol limitations that undermine reliability and clinical translation. Regimen heterogeneity is a core issue: ICBT, integral for local dose escalation, was administered to only 11.4% of patients in the POHIM-CCRT study versus standard use in other trials, invalidating cross-trial efficacy comparisons [28]. Inconsistency in concurrent chemotherapy (cisplatin-based regimens omitted in one MHRT arm but standard in the control arm) further complicates interpreting treatment outcomes [25]. Despite heterogeneity, data support MHRT’s feasibility in selected contexts: in the definitive setting, the South African Mallum et al. study reported 6-month CCR rates of 35.8% (MHRT) vs. 32.9% (CFRT) and 12-month RFS of 38.3% vs. 42.1% (no significant differences), while the Thai HYPOCx-iRex trial (median follow-up 19 months) showed no differences in LCR or OS. In the adjuvant setting, POHIM-RT reported 3-year DFS of 87.1% with MHRT alone, and POHIM-CCRT achieved 3-year DFS of 79.3% and OS of 98.0% with MHRT + concurrent chemotherapy [25,26,27,28].
Small sample sizes and relatively short follow up durations, typically less than three years, remain major limitations of current studies in this area. Importantly, late toxicities after radiation therapy for CC can emerge months to years after treatment, and some very late complications arise even later, often three to five years or more after completion of therapy. In addition, several reports lack long term tumor control data for high risk patients who did not receive ICBT or chemotherapy. This gap reduces the evidentiary strength of the conclusions and limits the extent to which the findings can inform or support guideline recommendations.

5.4. Technical Resource Heterogeneity: Challenges in Global Implementation

MHRT’s clinical implementation relies on precise dose delivery, which limits high-dose exposure to organs at risk (OARs), such as the small intestine and bladder. Insufficient technical precision or suboptimal planning drastically increases normal tissue toxicity, as illustrated by the Iranian study: using 3D-CRT, acute grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity was 27.6% in the MHRT group versus 6.7% in the CFRT group (p = 0.032), with intestinal V45Gy (195 cc) twice the QUANTEC-recommended limit—exacerbated by MHRT’s higher single-fraction dose [23].
Global resource inequities pose major barriers, particularly in LMICs. While MHRT theoretically alleviates resource burdens by shortening courses, LMICs face substantial technical and quality-assurance barriers: even with basic IMRT equipment, lack of standardized calibration and personnel training prevents effective implementation. Directly transferring HICs protocols to LMICs settings without robust QA infrastructure and workforce training may increase OAR. Successful global implementation of MHRT will require improved technical accessibility and systematic workforce training, not just protocol replication [45,46].

5.5. Cutting-Edge Clinical Trials: Addressing Gaps and Emerging Challenges

Ongoing trials are addressing key evidence gaps while exposing new challenges. Targeting high-risk populations, the U.S. MCC-23-GYN-10 trial (NCT06331468) enrolls patients with tumors ≥ 6 cm, and the Philippine NCT05210270 trial explores SIB for chemotherapy-intolerant patients [32,33]. These studies broaden applicability but lack standardized screening criteria; critical questions (dose adjustment thresholds for bulky tumors, safe SIB limits) require multicenter validation. Technological empowerment is another key direction: the Chinese MHARTCC trial (NCT05994300) combines ART with MHRT for stage IB1–IIIC1 CC, dynamically adjusting target volumes to reduce OARs dose and focusing on acute toxicity [29]. The Chinese SWIFT-1 trial (NCT06641635) (n = 440) compares 3-year PFS between ART-guided MHRT and CFRT, but its >3-year follow-up delays short-term evidence generation. Notably, ART capacity remains limited in most LMICs, restricting scalability [30].

6. Conclusions

In summary, although MHRT confers the important advantages of a shorter treatment course and more efficient resource utilization in the management of CC and has demonstrated feasibility in initial studies, the available evidence remains inadequate to endorse its widespread replacement of conventional fractionation regimens. The majority of existing studies involve patients at relatively low risk, the boundaries of the eligible patient population remain indistinct, and data on long-term disease control and late toxicity remain scarce. Future efforts should comprise large-scale, multicentre, long-term follow-up randomized controlled trials that stratify patients by risk category and across diverse technological settings in order to thoroughly assess the efficacy-toxicity balance of MHRT, thereby defining the appropriate patient cohorts and clinical scenarios and progressively facilitating its wider clinical integration.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.X. and F.G.; validation, Z.W., K.P. and S.W.; formal analysis, H.X. and F.G.; investigation, H.X. and F.G.; resources, S.W., P.J. and J.W.; data curation, Z.W., K.P. and A.Q.; writing—original draft preparation, H.X. and F.G.; writing—review and editing, H.X., F.G., Z.W., K.P., S.W., A.Q., J.W. and P.J.; supervision, J.W. and P.J.; project administration, A.Q., J.W. and P.J.; funding acquisition, S.W., J.W. and P.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82073335 to J.W.), National Key Research and Development Program (2022YFC2404606 to P.J.), the Key Specialty program of Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality (Z210008 to P.J.), Clinical scientist training program of Peking University (BMU2023PYJH009 to P.J.), Innovation and Translation project of Haidian District (HDCXZHKC2021215 to P.J.), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2023M730124 to S.W.), the Special Fund of National Clinical Key Specialty Construction Program of China (2021) and the Bethune Charitable Foundation (J202305E038 to P.J.).

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CCCervical Cancer
HPVHuman Papillomavirus
LMICsLow- and Middle-Income Countries
RTRadiotherapy
LACCLocally Advanced Cervical Cancer
CCRTConcurrent Chemoradiotherapy
CFRTConventional Fractionated Radiotherapy
IMRTIntensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
VMATVolumetric Modulated Arc Therapy
HFRTHypofractionated Radiotherapy
MHRTModerately Hypofractionated Radiotherapy
SBRTStereotactic Body Radiation Therapy
LQ ModelLinear-Quadratic Model
α/β RatioAlpha/Beta Ratio
EQD2Equivalent Biological Dose in 2 Gy Fractions
OTTOverall Treatment time
LCRLocal Control Rate
OSOverall Survival
CTRIClinical Trials Registry—India
LNMLymph node Metastasis
HDRHigh-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy
ICBTIntracavitary Brachytherapy
GIGastrointestinal
GUGenitourinary
DFSDisease-Free Survival
SIBSynchronous Integration Boost
IGABTImage-Guided Adaptive Brachytherapy
BTBrachytherapy
FIGOInternational Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics
CCRComplete Clinical Response
RFSRecurrence-Free Survival
NCTNational Clinical Trial
3D-CRTThree-dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy
QUANTEC Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic
OAROrgan-at-Risk
2D-EBRTTwo-dimensional External Beam Radiotherapy
ORROverall Response rate
ARTAdaptive Radiotherapy
HDR-BTHigh-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy
iCBCTiterative Cone-beam Computed Tomography
CTCAECommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events
RECISTResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
EORTCEuropean Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer
PFSProgression-Free Survival
CRRComplete Response Rate
LPFSlocoregional Progression-Free Survival
CSSDisease-Specific Survival
QOLQuality of Life
CTCCirculating Tumor Cell
MTDMaximum Tolerated Dose
MFSMetastasis-Free Survival
ABC-RTAccelerated Brachytherapy combined with Hypofractionated Radiotherapy and Concurrent Chemotherapy
LRFSLocal Recurrence-Free Survival
RRFSRegional Recurrence-Free Survival
HICsHigh-Income Countries
DSSDisease-Specific Survival
INCanNational Institute of Cancerology
RBERelative Biological Effectiveness
TIMETumor Immune Micr oenvironment

References

  1. Zhou, L.; Li, Y.; Wang, H.; Qin, R.; Han, Z.; Li, R. Global cervical cancer elimination: Quantifying the status, progress, and gaps. BMC Med. 2025, 23, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, Y.; Fan, Z.; Wang, J.; Guan, B.; Zhou, F.; Tang, Z.; Wu, W.; Huang, A. Hpv vaccination, screening disparities, and the shifting landscape of cervical cancer burden: A global analysis of trends, inequalities, and policy implications. BMC Womens Health 2025, 25, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, Z.; Liu, P.; Yin, A.; Zhang, B.; Xu, J.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, S.; Tang, L.; et al. Global landscape of cervical cancer incidence and mortality in 2022 and predictions to 2030: The urgent need to address inequalities in cervical cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2025, 157, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Holschneider, C.H.; Petereit, D.G.; Chu, C.; Hsu, I.; Ioffe, Y.J.; Klopp, A.H.; Pothuri, B.; Chen, L.; Yashar, C. Brachytherapy: A critical component of primary radiation therapy for cervical cancer: From the society of gynecologic oncology (sgo) and the american brachytherapy society (abs). Brachytherapy 2019, 18, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. DE Sanctis, V.; Facondo, G.; Vullo, G.; Anzellini, D.; Sanguineti, G.; Nardangeli, A.; Marmiroli, L.; Tortoreto, F.; Gentile, P.; Annessi, I.; et al. Clinical outcomes and toxicity of ct-guided high dose-rate brachytherapy in women with locally-advanced cervical cancer. Cancer Diagn. Progn. 2023, 3, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Landoni, F.; Maneo, A.; Colombo, A.; Placa, F.; Milani, R.; Perego, P.; Favini, G.; Ferri, L.; Mangioni, C. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage ib-iia cervical cancer. Lancet 1997, 350, 535–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Landoni, F.; Colombo, A.; Milani, R.; Placa, F.; Zanagnolo, V.; Mangioni, C. Randomized study between radical surgery and radiotherapy for the treatment of stage ib-iia cervical cancer: 20-year update. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2017, 28, e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Todo, Y.; Watari, H. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: Background including evidence-based data, pitfalls of the data, limitation of treatment in certain groups. Chin. J. Cancer Res. 2016, 28, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Salvo, G.; Jhingran, A.; Ramalingam, P.; Legarreta, A.F.; Bhosale, P.; Gonzales, N.R.; Chisholm, G.B.; Frumovitz, M. Definitive pelvic radiation therapy improves survival in stage ivb neuroendocrine cervical carcinoma: A nectur study. Gynecol. Oncol. 2022, 165, 530–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bhatia, R.; Lichter, K.E.; Gurram, L.; Macduffie, E.; Lombe, D.; Sarria, G.R.; Grover, S. The state of gynecologic radiation therapy in low- and middle-income countries. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2022, 32, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mayadev, J.S.; Ke, G.; Mahantshetty, U.; Pereira, M.D.; Tarnawski, R.; Toita, T. Global challenges of radiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2022, 32, 436–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mendez, L.C.; Moraes, F.Y.; Fernandes, G.D.S.; Weltman, E. Cancer deaths due to lack of universal access to radiotherapy in the brazilian public health system. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 30, e29–e36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pizarro, F.; Hernandez, A. Optimization of radiotherapy fractionation schedules based on radiobiological functions. Br. J. Radiol. 2017, 90, 20170400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wong, J.S.; Uno, H.; Tramontano, A.C.; Fisher, L.; Pellegrini, C.V.; Abel, G.A.; Burstein, H.J.; Chun, Y.S.; King, T.A.; Schrag, D.; et al. Hypofractionated vs conventionally fractionated postmastectomy radiation after implant-based reconstruction: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2024, 10, 1370–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Akimoto, T.; Aoyama, H.; Chua, M.L.K.; Jayamanne, D.; Mizowaki, T.; Morris, L.; Onishi, H.; Song, S.Y.; Zeidan, Y.H.; Sharma, R.A. Challenges and opportunities with the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy in cancer care: Regional perspectives from south korea, japan, singapore, and australia. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2023, 8, 101291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yoo, G.S.; Sung, S.; Song, J.H.; Kim, B.H.; Kwak, Y.; Kim, K.S.; Byun, H.K.; Kim, Y.; Kim, Y.J. Evidence-based clinical recommendations for hypofractionated radiotherapy: Exploring efficacy and safety-part 3. Genitourinary and gynecological cancers. Radiat. Oncol. J. 2024, 42, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Rodin, D.; Tawk, B.; Mohamad, O.; Grover, S.; Moraes, F.Y.; Yap, M.L.; Zubizarreta, E.; Lievens, Y. Hypofractionated radiotherapy in the real-world setting: An international estro-giro survey. Radiother. Oncol. 2021, 157, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Aitken, K.; Mukherjee, S. When less is more: The rising tide of hypofractionation. Clin. Oncol. 2022, 34, 277–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Choi, C.W.; Cho, C.K.; Yoo, S.Y.; Kim, M.S.; Yang, K.M.; Yoo, H.J.; Seo, Y.S.; Kang, J.K.; Lee, D.H.; Lee, K.H.; et al. Image-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy in patients with isolated para-aortic lymph node metastases from uterine cervical and corpus cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2009, 74, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Higginson, D.S.; Morris, D.E.; Jones, E.L.; Clarke-Pearson, D.; Varia, M.A. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (sbrt): Technological innovation and application in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol. Oncol. 2011, 120, 404–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Hasan, S.; Ricco, A.; Jenkins, K.; Lanciano, R.; Hanlon, A.; Lamond, J.; Yang, J.; Feng, J.; Good, M.; Noumoff, J.; et al. Survival and control prognosticators of recurrent gynecological malignancies of the pelvis and para-aortic region treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. Front. Oncol. 2016, 6, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Zeng, Z.; Zhang, F.; Yan, J. Moderated hypofractionated online adaptive radiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: A case report. Cureus 2024, 16, e66552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Maddah Safaei, A.; Esmati, E.; Gomar, M.; Akhavan, S.; Sheikh Hasani, S.; Malekzadeh Moghani, M.; Zamani, N.; Moshtaghi, M.; Malek, M.; Jafari, F.; et al. Hypofractionated versus standard chemoradiotherapy in the definitive treatment of uterine cervix cancer: Interim results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2024, 150, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Amjad, R.; Moldovan, N.; Raziee, H.; Leung, E.; D’Souza, D.; Mendez, L.C. Hypofractionated radiotherapy in gynecologic malignancies-a peek into the upcoming evidence. Cancers 2024, 16, 362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mallum, A.; Tendwa, M.B.; Saidu, R.; Swanson, W.; Phan, P.; Li, H.; Ngoma, T.; Avery, S.; Huq, M.S.; Akudugu, J.M.; et al. A comparative analysis of hypofractionated versus conventional radiotherapy for cervical cancer in a resource-limited setting: A prospective study. Front. Oncol. 2025, 15, 1552346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dankulchai, P.; Prasartseree, T.; Sittiwong, W.; Thephamongkhol, K.; Nakkrasae, P. Early results of hypofractionated chemoradiation in cervical cancer with 44 gy/20 f vs 45 gy/25 f: A phase ii, open-label, randomised controlled trial (hypocx-irex trial). Clin. Oncol. 2025, 46, 103907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cho, W.K.; Park, W.; Kim, S.; Lee, K.K.; Ahn, K.J.; Yoon, M.; Choi, J.H. Postoperative hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy in cervical cancer: Prospective phase 2 trial (pohim_rt study). Gynecol. Oncol. 2025, 198, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Cho, W.K.; Park, W.; Kim, S.; Lee, K.K.; Ahn, K.J.; Choi, J.H. Postoperative hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy in cervical cancer: The pohim-ccrt nonrandomized controlled trial. JAMA Oncol. 2024, 10, 737–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, F. Clinical Research of Moderately Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Cervical Cancer. 2023. Available online: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05994300 (accessed on 1 October 2025).
  30. Zeng, Z.; Chen, Y.; Qiu, J.; Yang, B.; Wang, Z.; Meng, X.; Sun, Y.; Yan, J.; Hu, K.; Zhang, F. Moderately hypofractionated online adaptive radiotherapy (swift-1) in cervical cancer patients: Study protocol for a multi-centered, open-label, two-arm, phase iii, randomized controlled study. Radiat. Oncol. 2025, 20, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Cho, W.K.; Park, W.; Lee, J.H.; Kang, H.; Yoon, M.; Eom, K.; Kim, Y.; Park, S.; Kim, Y.S.; Kim, Y.J.; et al. Postoperative conventional versus hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy in cervical cancer: A prospective multicenter randomized phase iii trial (pohim_p3 trial). J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2025, 37, e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fabian, D. Phase ii Trial of Hypofractionated Radiochemotherapy for Women with Metastatic or Bulky Uterine Cervix Cancer. 2024. Available online: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06331468 (accessed on 1 October 2025).
  33. Bacorro, W. Phase 1/2 Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness and Safety of Dose-Adapted Hypofractionated Pelvic Radiotherapy for Advanced Cervical Cancers Ineligible for Chemotherapy. 2021. Available online: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05210270 (accessed on 1 October 2025).
  34. Contreras, J.A. Accelerated Brachytherapy Forward Chemo Radiation Therapy (abc-rt) for Locally-Advanced Cervical Cancer. 2024. Available online: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06529809 (accessed on 1 October 2025).
  35. Mendez, L. Hypofractionated External-Beam Radiotherapy for Intact Cervical Cancer (Heroicc-Trial): A Feasibility Study. 2020. Available online: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04583254 (accessed on 1 October 2025).
  36. Maddah-Safaei, A. Comparison of Clinical Response and Toxicity of Hypo-Fractionated Chemoradiation with Standard Treatment in Patients with Uterine Cervix Cancer. 2021. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04831437 (accessed on 1 October 2025).
  37. Leon, D. Phase ii Randomized Controlled Trial of Concomitant Chemoradiotherapy with Standard Fractionation Compared to Hypofractionated Concomitant Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Brachytherapy, for Clinical Stage iii Cervical Cancer Patients. 2019. Available online: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04070976 (accessed on 1 October 2025).
  38. Cantu, D. Phase ii Randomized Study of Concurrent Chemotherapy and Pelvic Radiation Therapy with Standard Fractionated Compared to Hypofractionated Followed by Surgery for Patients with Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer. 2018. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03750539 (accessed on 1 October 2025).
  39. van Leeuwen, C.M.; Oei, A.L.; Crezee, J.; Bel, A.; Franken, N.A.P.; Stalpers, L.J.A.; Kok, H.P. The alfa and beta of tumours: A review of parameters of the linear-quadratic model, derived from clinical radiotherapy studies. Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 13, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tamponi, M.; Gabriele, D.; Maggio, A.; Stasi, M.; Meloni, G.B.; Conti, M.; Gabriele, P. Prostate cancer dose-response, fractionation sensitivity and repopulation parameters evaluation from 25 international radiotherapy outcome data sets. Br. J. Radiol. 2019, 92, 20180823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Thayer-Freeman, C.; Washington, B.; Fabian, D.; Cheek, D.; Clair, W.S.; Bernard, M.; Luo, W. In vitro alpha/beta ratio variations in cervical cancer, with consequent effects on equivalent dose in 2 gy fraction in high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2025, 10, 101725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Huang, Z.; Mayr, N.A.; Gao, M.; Lo, S.S.; Wang, J.Z.; Jia, G.; Yuh, W.T.C. Onset time of tumor repopulation for cervical cancer: First evidence from clinical data. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012, 84, 478–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lin, S.; Ku, H.; Chang, T.; Liu, T.; Hong, J. The prognostic impact of overall treatment time on disease outcome in uterine cervical cancer patients treated primarily with concomitant chemoradiotherapy: A nationwide taiwanese cohort study. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 85203–85213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Perez, C.A.; Grigsby, P.W.; Castro-Vita, H.; Lockett, M.A. Carcinoma of the uterine cervix. I. Impact of prolongation of overall treatment time and timing of brachytherapy on outcome of radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1995, 32, 1275–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Silverwood, S.M.; Carlson, C.M.; Zhu, H.; Biancia, C.D.; Dempsey, C.; Shulman, A.; Keiper, T.D.; Koufigar, S.; Yorke, A.; Jalal, B.; et al. Enhancing imrt/vmat competencies in lmics globally within radiation physicists through remote training. Radiother. Oncol. 2025, 209, 110957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Datta, N.R.; Rogers, S.; Bodis, S. Challenges and opportunities to realize “the 2030 agenda for sustainable development” by the united nations: Implications for radiation therapy infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2019, 105, 918–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Download PDF
Impacts of Self-Esteem and Self-Perceived Burden on Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients with Ovarian Cancer: Does Age Matter?
Previous