ReviewCurrent oncology reports2016
Can We Be Less Radical with Surgery for Early Cervical Cancer?
Review in Current oncology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of lymph node status in patients with early-stage cervical cancer based on radiomic features of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Review
- A novel 2-deoxy-2-fluorodeoxyglucose (Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- Noninvasive prediction of lymph node status for patients with early-stage cervical cancer based on radiomics features from ultrasound images.European radiology · 2020Article
- Less radical surgery for women with early stage cervical cancer: Our experience on radical vaginal trachelectomy and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2019Article
- Risk Factors of Regional Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Cervical Cancer.Open life sciences · 2019Article
- Combining metformin and nelfinavir exhibits synergistic effects against the growth of human cervical cancer cells and xenograft in nude mice.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although a rare cancer in the developed world due to the success of cervical screening programmes, cervical cancer remains one of the most common cancers diagnosed in women under the age of 35 years old. Radical hysterectomy and more recently radical trachelectomy have been highly effective in curing the majority of women with early stage disease. Many, however, are left with long-term 'survivorship' issues including bowel, bladder and sexual dysfunction. In view of these chronic co-morbidities, many clinicians now consider whether a less radical approach to surgery may be an option for some women. This review focuses on the current evidence for the safety of conservative surgery for early stage cervical cancer with regard to cure rates in comparison to standard management, as well as any improvement in short and long-term morbidity associated with a more conservative approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26838586What 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.