ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2016
Fertility-Sparing Options in Young Women with Cervical Cancer.
Review in Current treatment options in 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The association between short-term response and long-term survival for cervical cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a system review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2018Pooled it
- Physicians' Controversies Towards Fertility Preservation in Young Patients with Gynecological Cancer: An MITO Survey.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Navigating Fertility Preservation Options in Gynecological Cancers: A Comprehensive Review.Cancers · 2024Review
- Fertility-sparing surgery in early-stage cervical cancer: laparoscopic versus abdominal radical trachelectomy.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Combined dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging to predict neoadjuvant chemotherapy effect in FIGO stage IB2-IIA2 cervical cancers.La Radiologia medica · 2020Article
- Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit of Cervical Cancer Screening with Liquid Based Cytology Compared with Conventional Cytology in Germany.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2020Article
- Tailoring radicality in early cervical cancer: how far can we go?Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2019Review
- Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Uterine-Preserving Surgery in Young Women With Stage Ib1 Cervical Cancer.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2018Article
- Fertility preservation in gynaecologic cancers.Ecancermedicalscience · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementCervical cancer (CC) is the fourth most frequent tumor and the fourth most common cause of cancer death among women worldwide. Furthermore, more than 40 % of women with early CC are affected during reproductive age and wish to remain fertile. Thus, many patients demand a more conservative policy for managing these lesions in order to have an uneventful pregnancy in the near future. For this reason, interest in fertility preservation strategies has been increasing, and the number of published studies on this topic has grown significantly. Conization was the first fertility-sparing surgical procedure tested in stage IA1 CC. However, in recent decades, other strategies have been tested, particularly for more advanced tumors. The aim of this review is to analyze the main techniques performed in patients with CC who are eligible for fertility-sparing surgery, with particular attention paid to open questions and controversies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.