Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26438230›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2016

Radical hysterectomy with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy for patients with stage IB2, IIA2, and IIB cervical cancer: outcomes for a series of 308 patients.

Tetsushi Tsuruga, Asaha Fujimoto, Kei Kawana, Mayuyo Mori, Yoko Hasumi, Nao Kino, Kensuke Tomio, Shiho Miura, Michihiro Tanikawa, Kenbun Sone and 14 more

Abstract read

PubMed Publisher

In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it

1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field

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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

Fertility-Sparing Treatment for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer ≥ 2 cm: A Problem with a Thousand Nuances-A Systematic Review of Oncological Outcomes.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022
Pooled it
Intraoperative frozen pathology exam of Common iliac lymph nodes and Para-Aortic lymphadenectomy on the prognosis and quality of life for patients with IB2-IIA2 Cervical Cancer: trial protocol for a randomized controlled trial (C-PACC trial).Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2023
Article
Comparison of survival outcomes with or without Para-aortic lymphadenectomy in surgical patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer in China from 2004 to 2016.BMC cancer · 2021
Article
Prognostic Nomograms Predicting Survival in Patients With Locally Advanced Cervical Squamous Cell Carcinoma: The First Nomogram Compared With Revised FIGO 2018 Staging System.Frontiers in oncology · 2020
Article
The prognostic value of lymph node ratio in stage IIIC cervical cancer patients triaged to primary treatment by radical hysterectomy with systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2020
Article
A comprehensive analysis of the factors of positive pelvic lymph nodes on survival of cervical cancer patients with 2018 FIGO stage IIIC1p.Cancer management and research · 2019
Article
Predictive factors of para-aortic lymph nodes metastasis in cervical cancer patients: a retrospective analysis based on 723 para-aortic lymphadenectomy cases.Oncotarget · 2017
Article
Treatment Strategies and Prognostic Factors of 2018 FIGO Stage IIIC Cervical Cancer: A Review.Technology in cancer research & treatment
Review
The role of para-aortic nodal irradiation in cervical cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
Review

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

24 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tetsushi TsurugaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Asaha FujimotoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Kei KawanaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. kkawana-tky@umin.org.

Mayuyo MoriDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Yoko HasumiDepartment of Gynecology, Saitama Cancer Center, 780 Komuro, Ina-machi, Kita-adachi-Gun, Saitama, 362-0806, Japan.

Nao KinoDepartment of Gynecology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Disease Center Komagome Hospital, 3-18-22 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan.

Kensuke TomioDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Shiho MiuraDepartment of Gynecology, Saitama Cancer Center, 780 Komuro, Ina-machi, Kita-adachi-Gun, Saitama, 362-0806, Japan.

Michihiro TanikawaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Kenbun SoneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Yuichiro MiyamotoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Yuji IkedaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Satoko KojimaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Katsuyuki AdachiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Kazunori NagasakaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Yoko MatsumotoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Takahide ArimotoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Katsutoshi OdaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Shunsuke NakagawaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Koji HorieDepartment of Gynecology, Saitama Cancer Center, 780 Komuro, Ina-machi, Kita-adachi-Gun, Saitama, 362-0806, Japan.

Toshiharu YasugiDepartment of Gynecology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Disease Center Komagome Hospital, 3-18-22 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan.

Harushige YokotaDepartment of Gynecology, Saitama Cancer Center, 780 Komuro, Ina-machi, Kita-adachi-Gun, Saitama, 362-0806, Japan.

Yutaka OsugaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Tomoyuki FujiiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

The University of Tokyo · JPSaitama Cancer Center · JPTokyo Metropolitan Komagome Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough many studies have already shown that lymph node metastasis is one of the major prognostic factors for cervical cancer, the therapeutic significance of para-aortic lymphadenectomy for the surgical treatment of cervical cancer remains controversial.

methodsA total of 308 patients diagnosed with stage IB2, IIA2, or IIB cervical cancer and treated with radical hysterectomy were retrospectively investigated to assess the incidence of para-aortic lymph node metastasis and the clinicopathological factors linked to cervical cancer prognosis.

resultsPara-aortic lymph node metastases were pathologically confirmed in 13 of the 136 patients (9.6 %) who underwent para-aortic lymphadenectomy. The incidence of para-aortic lymph node metastasis was significantly higher in the patients who had common iliac lymph node metastases (odds ratio 31.5, p < 0.001) according to logistic regression analysis. Common iliac lymph node metastasis was related to risk of recurrence (hazard ratio 2.43, p = 0.003) and death (hazard ratio 2.62, p = 0.007) in Cox regression analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression analysis showed that para-aortic lymphadenectomy did not have a positive impact on survival in 308 patients or 140 pN1 patients, but para-aortic lymphadenectomy was related to better overall survival with a marginal trend toward significance (p = 0.053) in 30 patients with common iliac lymph node metastasis.

conclusionsIndication for para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the surgical treatment of stage IB2, IIA2, or IIB cervical cancer needs to be individualized. Patients with common iliac lymph node metastasis are possible candidates, and a prospective study is needed to clarify this issue.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleHumansHysterectomyKaplan-Meier EstimateLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateCervical cancerCommon iliac lymph node metastasisPara-aortic lymphadenectomyRadical hysterectomy

Identifiers

PMID26438230

DOI10.1007/s10147-015-0907-3

OpenAlexW1856251444

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.