ArticleScientific reports2016
Accuracy of conization procedure for predicting pathological parameters of radical hysterectomy in stage Ia2-Ib1 (≤2 cm) cervical cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Polish Society of Gynecological Oncology Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cervical Cancer (v2024.0).Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The diagnostic value of core needle biopsy in cervical cancer: A retrospective analysis.PloS one · 2022Article
- Can Conization Specimens Predict Sentinel Lymph Node Status in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer? A SENTICOL Group Study.Cancers · 2021Article
- The value of MR-based radiomics in identifying residual disease in patients with carcinoma in situ after cervical conization.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Oncological and reproductive outcomes of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix managed with the loop electrosurgical excision procedure.BMC cancer · 2018Article
- Piver Type II vs. Type III Hysterectomy in the Treatment of Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Midterm Follow-up Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accuracy of conization for the prediction of radical hysterectomy (RH) pathological variables in patients with stage Ia2 to Ib1 (≤2 cm) cervical cancer was retrospectively evaluated in the present study. Endocervical or deep resection margin (RM) involvement in the conization specimens was found to be independently associated with residual disease in the hysterectomy specimens (P < 0.001, = 0.003, respectively). When a tumor width of >20 mm in the final RH pathology analysis was predicted by a tumor width of >2 mm or involvement of endocervical or deep RMs in the conization specimens, the sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of conization were 98.2% and 95.2%, respectively. In addition, when deep stromal invasion in the final RH pathology analysis was predicted by deep stromal invasion or involvement of the endocervical or deep RMs in the conization specimens, the sensitivity and NPV of conization were 98.4% and 95.8%, respectively. The sensitivity and NPV of this prediction model for identifying LVSI in the final RH pathology analysis were both 100%. These findings suggest that conization variables and endocervical and deep resection margin statuses can be analyzed to effectively predict RH pathological parameters.
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.