You will be provided with the titles and abstracts of a collection of medical RCT reports studying a clinical question -- for instance, the efficacy of an intervention on some medical outcome. Please write a few sentences synthesizing the findings of these reports, which could serve as a conclusion section for a systematic review article. Your response should not include any other text. The RCT reports are below.



Title 1:
High-dose-rate versus low-dose-rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a randomized trial.
Abstract 1:
This was a prospective randomized clinical trial undertaken at our institution to compare low-dose-rate (LDR) intracavitary radiation therapy versus high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary radiation therapy for the treatment of cervical carcinoma.
                From January 1984 to December 1997, a total of 132 patients with Stage II or IIIB of invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix were entered into this randomized study. Treatment arm by HDR or LDR was allocated according to the month of each patient's birth. External irradiation consisted of whole pelvis irradiation and pelvic irradiation. Doses of external irradiation for both groups were identical. The authors used 0.588 as the conversion factor of total intracavitary dose from LDR to HDR.
                The 5-year disease specific survival rates of Stage II and III patients treated with HDR were 69% and 51% whereas those with LDR were 87% and 60%, respectively. The 5-year pelvic recurrence free survival rates of Stage II and III patients treated with HDR were 89% and 73% whereas those with LDR were 100% and 70%, respectively. There was no significant difference in disease specific survival or pelvic recurrence free survival rates between HDR and LDR. The actuarial complication rate (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Grade 3, 4, or 5) at 5 years was 10% in the HDR group and 13% in the LDR group, and the difference between the HDR and LDR groups was not statistically significant.
                The pelvic control or actuarial complication rates were comparable between HDR and LDR treatment. The difference between the disease specific survival rates for HDR and LDR was not statistically significant for Stage II or III, although in Stage II, patients treated with LDR appeared to have a better survival rate than those treated with HDR.
                Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society.


Title 2:
Low dose rate vs. high dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a clinical trial.
Abstract 2:
This study is a prospective randomized clinical trial undertaken at our center to compare low dose rate versus high dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy for the treatment of carcinoma uterine cervix.
                From June 1986 to June 1989, 482 patients with previously untreated invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix were entered into the study. After an initial clinical examination and investigative work-up the patients were staged according to FIGO staging system. Depending upon the stage of the disease, the size of the local growth and the local cervical anatomy, the patients were divided into two main groups. In group I patients, the predominant treatment was by intracavitary therapy and in group II patients, the predominant therapy was by external beam radiation. In both the groups at the time of intracavity brachytherapy the patients were alternately randomized to receive either low dose rate or high dose rate brachytherapy. There were thus two hundred forty-six patients in the low dose rate group and two hundred thirty-six patients in the high dose rate group. The patients were analyzed for local control, 5 years survival and late radiation morbidity.
                Stage for stage the local control rates in the low dose rate group and high dose rate group were similar. The overall local control achieved in the low dose rate group was 79.7% as compared to 75.8% in the high dose rate group. The 5 years survival figures in the low dose rate and high dose rate group were also comparable. In Stage I, it was 73% for low dose rate patients and 78% for high dose rate patients, for Stage II it was 62% and 64% respectively and for Stage III patients it was 50% and 43%. The only statistically significant difference was found in the incidence of overall rectal complications which was 19.9% for the low dose rate group as compared to only 6.4% for the high dose rate group. However, the more severe grade 3-4 complications were not significantly different between the two groups (2.4% vs. 0.4%, respectively). The bladder morbidity in both the groups was similar.
                Thus high dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy is an equally good alternative to conventional low dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix.


Title 3:
High-dose rate and low-dose rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Final results of Osaka University Hospital.
Abstract 3:
High-dose rate (HDR) intracavitary radiation therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix has gradually found wider acceptance. In 1983, the authors first presented the results of prospective randomized comparative study of HDR versus low-dose rate (LDR) therapy. In the current study, the final results of this study with a longer follow-up are presented.
                From January 1975 through August 1983, 430 previously untreated patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix in Stages I-III were treated with either HDR 60Co therapy or LDR 137Cs therapy at our department. HDR was administered to a total of 259 patients: 32 patients in Stage I, 80 in Stage II, and 147 in Stage III. LDR was administered to a total of 171 patients: 28 patients in Stage I, 61 in Stage II, and 82 in Stage III.
                The 5-year cause-specific survival rates of Stage I-III patients treated with HDR were 85%, 73%, and 53%, respectively. The corresponding figures for LDR were 93%, 78%, and 47%, respectively. There was no significant difference between these survival rates. Moderate-to-severe complications developed in 10% of the patients treated with HDR and 4% of those with LDR. This difference in the incidence of complications was statistically significant (P = 0.023).
                Treatment results in terms of cause-specific survival were equivalent for HDR and LDR treatment. However, the incidence of complications was higher for the HDR group, although within acceptable levels, than for the LDR group.


Title 4:
Phase III randomized trial comparing LDR and HDR brachytherapy in treatment of cervical carcinoma.
Abstract 4:
Intracavitary brachytherapy plays an important role in the treatment of cervical carcinoma. Previous results have shown controversy between the effect of dose rate on tumor control and the occurrence of complications. We performed a prospective randomized clinical trial to compare the clinical outcomes between low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary brachytherapy for treatment of invasive uterine cervical carcinoma.
                A total of 237 patients with previously untreated invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital were randomized between June 1995 and December 2001. Excluding ineligible, incomplete treatment, and incomplete data patients, 109 and 112 patients were in the LDR and HDR groups, respectively. All patients were treated with external beam radiotherapy and LDR or HDR intracavitary brachytherapy using the Chulalongkorn treatment schedule.
                The median follow-up for the LDR and HDR groups was 40.2 and 37.2 months, respectively. The actuarial 3-year overall and relapse-free survival rate for all patients was 69.6% and 70%, respectively. The 3-year overall survival rate in the LDR and HDR groups was 70.9% and 68.4% (p = 0.75) and the 3-year pelvic control rate was 89.1% and 86.4% (p = 0.51), respectively. The 3-year relapse-free survival rate in both groups was 69.9% (p = 0.35). Most recurrences were distant metastases, especially in Stage IIB and IIIB patients. Grade 3 and 4 complications were found in 2.8% and 7.1% of the LDR and HDR groups (p = 0.23).
                Comparable outcomes were demonstrated between LDR and HDR intracavitary brachytherapy. Concerning patient convenience, the lower number of medical personnel needed, and decreased radiation to health care workers, HDR intracavitary brachytherapy is an alternative to conventional LDR brachytherapy. The high number of distant failure suggests that other modalities such as systemic concurrent or adjuvant chemotherapy might lower this high recurrence, especially in Stage IIB and IIIB.
This review showed no significant differences between HDR- and LDR-ICBT when considering OS, DSS, RFS, local control rate, recurrence, metastasis and treatment related complications for women with cervical carcinoma. Due to some potential advantages of HDR-ICBT (rigid immobilization, outpatient treatment, patient convenience, accuracy of source and applicator positioning, individualized treatment) we recommend the use of HDR-ICBT for all clinical stages of cervix cancer.