ArticleOncotarget2016
Development and validation of a surgical-pathologic staging and scoring system for cervical cancer.
Article in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Increased risk of poor survival in ovarian cancer patients with high expression of SNAI2 and lymphovascular space invasion.Oncotarget · 2017Pooled it
- Adjuvant chemotherapy versus adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy after radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: a randomized, non-inferiority, multicenter trial.Frontiers of medicine · 2023Trial
- Validation of the 2018 FIGO Staging System for Predicting the Prognosis of Patients With Stage IIIC Cervical Cancer.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Application of an Autophagy-Related Gene Prognostic Risk Model Based on TCGA Database in Cervical Cancer.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Prognostic Assessment of Cervical Cancer Patients by Clinical Staging and Surgical-Pathological Factor: A Support Vector Machine-Based Approach.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
43 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost cervical cancer patients worldwide receive surgical treatments, and yet the current International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system do not consider surgical-pathologic data. We propose a more comprehensive and prognostically valuable surgical-pathologic staging and scoring system (SPSs).
methodsRecords from 4,220 eligible cervical cancer cases (Cohort 1) were screened for surgical-pathologic risk factors. We constructed a surgical-pathologic staging and SPSs, which was subsequently validated in a prospective study of 1,104 cervical cancer patients (Cohort 2).
resultsIn Cohort 1, seven independent risk factors were associated with patient outcome: lymph node metastasis (LNM), parametrial involvement, histological type, grade, tumor size, stromal invasion, and lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI). The FIGO staging system was revised and expanded into a surgical-pathologic staging system by including additional criteria of LNM, stromal invasion, and LVSI. LNM was subdivided into three categories based on number and location of metastases. Inclusion of all seven prognostic risk factors improves practical applicability. Patients were stratified into three SPSs risk categories: zero-, low-, and high-score with scores of 0, 1 to 3, and ≥4 (P=1.08E-45; P=6.15E-55). In Cohort 2, 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) outcomes decreased with increased SPSs scores (P=9.04E-15; P=3.23E-16), validating the approach. Surgical-pathologic staging and SPSs show greater homogeneity and discriminatory utility than FIGO staging.
conclusionsSurgical-pathologic staging and SPSs improve characterization of tumor severity and disease invasion, which may more accurately predict outcome and guide postoperative therapy.
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.