Background This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2009. 2011 and searched the MetaRegister for ongoing trials. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared adjuvant therapies (radiotherapy, chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy, or chemoradiation) with no radiotherapy or chemoradiation, in women with a confirmed histological diagnosis of early cervical malignancy who experienced undergone radical hysterectomy and dissection of the pelvic lymph nodes. Data collection and analysis Two evaluate authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Information on grade 3 and 4 adverse events was collected from the trials. Results were pooled using random-effects 606-04-2 IC50 meta-analyses. Main results Two RCTs, which compared adjuvant radiotherapy with no adjuvant radiotherapy, met the inclusion criteria; they randomised and assessed 397 606-04-2 IC50 women with stage IB cervical malignancy. Meta-analysis of these two RCTs indicated no significant difference in survival at 5 years between women who received radiation and those who received no further treatment (risk ratio (RR) = 0.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3 to 2.4). 606-04-2 IC50 However, women who received radiation had a significantly lower risk of disease progression at 5 years (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9). Although the risk of severe adverse events was consistently higher if women received radiotherapy rather than no further treatment, these increased risks were not statistically significant, probably because the rate of adverse events was low. Authors conclusions We found evidence, of moderate quality, that 606-04-2 IC50 radiation decreases the risk of disease progression compared with no further treatment, but little evidence that it might improve overall survival, in stage IB cervical malignancy. The evidence on serious adverse events was equivocal. (Issue 4, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1950 to November 2008), EMBASE (1950 to November 606-04-2 IC50 2008), Cochrane Gynaecological Malignancy Group (CGCRG) Specialised Register. For the updated review, these searches were extended as follows: MEDLINE to September week 4, 2011; EMBASE to week 40, 2011; CENTRAL Issue 4 2011 and the CGCRG Specialised Register. The updated search was performed by Jane Hayes of the CGCRG (observe Acknowledgements). The MEDLINE search strategy is offered in Appendix 1, EMBASE is usually offered in Appendix 2 and CENTRAL is usually offered in Appendix 3. CENTRAL, The National Research Register (NRR) and Clinical Trials Register were searched in all fields using the following terms: cervix malignancy, cervical malignancy, adjuvant RT, adjuvant chemoradiation, early stage. Searching other resources MetaRegister, Physicians Data Query, www.controlled-trials.com/rct, www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials and Gynaecologic Oncologists of Canada (http://www.g-o-c.org) were searched for ongoing trials. The main investigators of any relevant ongoing trials were contacted for further information, as were any major cooperative trials groups active in this area. The citation list of relevant publications, abstracts of scientific COG3 meetings and list of included studies were checked through hand-searching and experts in the field were contacted to identify further reports of trials. Reports of conferences were handsearched in the following sources: Gynecologic Oncology (Annual Getting together with of the American Society of Gynecologic Oncologists) (Annual Getting together with of the International Gynecologic Malignancy Society) English Journal of Malignancy British Cancer Research Meeting Annual Getting together with of European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Getting together with of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Data collection and analysis Selection of studies All titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching were downloaded to the reference management database Endnote, duplicates were removed and the remaining references were examined by two review authors (LR and SS) independently. Those studies that clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded and copies of the full text of potentially relevant references were obtained. The eligibility of retrieved papers was assessed independently by two review authors (LR and SS). Disagreements were resolved by conversation between the two review authors and if necessary by a third review author (DL). Reasons for exclusion were documented. Data extraction and management For included studies, data were extracted as recommended in Chapter 7 of the (Higgins 2011). This.