Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25708593›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2015

Investigation of the clinicopathological features of squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva: a retrospective survey of the Tohoku Gynecologic Cancer Unit.

Masayuki Futagami, Yoshihito Yokoyama, Kaori Iino, Masahiko Aoki, Tadahiro Shoji, Toru Sugiyama, Hisanori Ariga, Hideki Tokunaga, Tadao Takano, Yoh Watanabe and 15 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Masayuki FutagamiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, 5-Zaifu-cho, Hirosaki, Aomori, 036-8562, Japan.
Yoshihito YokoyamaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, 5-Zaifu-cho, Hirosaki, Aomori, 036-8562, Japan. yokoyama@cc.hirosaki-u.ac.jp.
Kaori IinoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, 5-Zaifu-cho, Hirosaki, Aomori, 036-8562, Japan.
Masahiko AokiDepartment of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, 5-Zaifu-cho, Hirosaki, Aomori, 036-8562, Japan.
Tadahiro ShojiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine, Morioka, Japan.
Toru SugiyamaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine, Morioka, Japan.
Hisanori ArigaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine, Morioka, Japan.
Hideki TokunagaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Tadao TakanoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Yoh WatanabeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Nobuo YaegashiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Keiichi JinguDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Naoki SatoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
Yukihiro TeradaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
Akira AnbaiDepartment of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
Tsuyoshi OhtaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yamagata University Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata, Japan.
Hirohisa KurachiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yamagata University Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata, Japan.
Yuuki KurodaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Yamagata University Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata, Japan.
Hiroshi NishiyamaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan.
Keiya FujimoriDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan.
Takafumi WatanabeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan.
Hisashi SatoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan.
Toru TaseDepartment of Gynecology, Miyagi Cancer Center, Natori, Japan.
Hitoshi WadaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Miyagi Cancer Center, Natori, Japan.
Hideki MizunumaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, 5-Zaifu-cho, Hirosaki, Aomori, 036-8562, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis multi-institutional study was conducted to clarify the clinicopathological features of squamous cell carcinomas of the vulva.

methodsThe medical records of vulvar cancer patients treated between 2002 and 2012 were retrospectively reviewed following approval by the Institutional Review Board of each institution.

resultsOne hundred and eleven patients with vulvar malignancies were included. Of these, 63 patients had squamous cell carcinoma (57 %). Initial treatment was surgery, radiation therapy (RT), and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in 34 (54 %), 15 (24 %), and 11 (17 %) patients, respectively. Nineteen, 11, 26, and 7 patients had stage I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively. Of the 34 patients who had surgical treatment, 50 % had stage I disease, while 74 % of those who received CCRT had stage III or IV disease. Complete response (CR) rates for the surgery, RT, and CCRT groups were 73, 60, and 64 %, respectively. The 5-year survival rates for stage I/II and III/IV disease were 64 and 39 %, respectively (P = 0.019). The 5-year survival rates for the surgery, RT, and CCRT groups were 53, 38, and 50 %, respectively, and the prognosis of patients treated with surgery or CCRT was significantly better than that of patients who received RT (P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, clinical response to initial treatment was an independent prognostic factor (P < 0.001).

conclusionsAlthough many patients had advanced-stage disease in the CCRT group, the therapeutic outcome for the surgery and CCRT groups was similar. Thus, CCRT may be a promising treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Squamous CellFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesVulvar NeoplasmsYoung AdultCCRTPrognosisSquamous cell carcinoma of the vulvaSurgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.