SynthesisOncotarget2017
Oncologic and obstetrical outcomes with fertility-sparing treatment of cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Oncological and reproductive outcomes of conization combined with pelvic node evaluation in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Assisted Reproductive Technology in Breast and Gynecologic Malignancies: Cancer Risk, Fertility Preservation, and Post-Treatment Reproductive Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Symptom Clusters and Quality of Life in Cervical Cancer Patients During the Perioperative Period: A Longitudinal Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Review
- Cancer of the cervix uteri: 2025 update.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Review
- Trachelectomy and Cerclage Placement as Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Cervical Cancer-An Expert Survey.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- The Polish Society of Gynecological Oncology Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cervical Cancer (v2024.0).Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The top 100 most cited articles on fertility-sparing treatments for cervical cancer: A bibliometric analysis.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Navigating Fertility Preservation Options in Gynecological Cancers: A Comprehensive Review.Cancers · 2024Review
- Fertility Preservation in Cervical Cancer-Treatment Strategies and Indications.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Surgical, oncologic, and obstetric outcomes of radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: results from a retrospective cohort study at Brazil National Cancer Institute.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Fertility preservation in gynecologic cancer patients.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2023Article
- Conservative treatment of glassy cell cervical cancer: A case report.Oncology letters · 2023Article
- Fetal biometric and Doppler measurements following abdominal radical trachelectomy in the second trimester of the pregnancy.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Large Conization-Retrospective Monocentric Results for Fertility Preservation in Young Women with Early Stage Cervical Cancer.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2022Article
- Review
- Cervical Cancer and Fertility-Sparing Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Staging, recurrence and follow-up of uterine cervical cancer using MRI: Updated Guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology after revised FIGO staging 2018.European radiology · 2021Article
- Cancer of the cervix uteri: 2021 update.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objectives of this study were to evaluate the rates of recurrence, survival and pregnancy, and characterize pregnancy outcomes of early-stage cervical cancer(eCC) treated with fertility-sparing methods such as cervical conization (CON) and radical trachelectomy(RT) with or without pelvic lymphadenectomy. STUDY
designThis was a meta-analysis of observational studies analyzed by a random-effects model and a meta-regression to assess heterogeneity.
resultsSixty observational studies encompassing 2,854 patients were included; 17 of which evaluated CON and 43 RT. Three hundred and seventy-five patients were included in the CON group: 176(46.9%) stage IA1 and 167(44.5%) stage IB1. In the RT group, 2479 cases were included: 143(6.0%) stage IA1, 299(12.1%) stage IA2, 1987(79.9%) stage IB1. CON was performed in 347(92.5%) cases, resulting in a recurrence rate of 0.4%(95%CI: 0.0%-1.4%), a death rate of 0%(0%-0%), a pregnancy rate of 36.1%(26.4%-46.2%), a spontaneous abortion rate of 14.8%(9.3%-21.2%) and a preterm delivery rate of 6.8%(1.5%-15.5%). For the RT group, 2273(91.7%) underwent successful surgeries with a recurrence rate of 2.3%(1.3%-3.4%),a death rate of 0.7%(0.3%-1.1%), a pregnancy rate of 20.5%(16.8%-24.5%), a spontaneous abortion rate of 24.0%(18.8%-29.6%) and a preterm delivery rate of 26.6%(19.6%-34.2%). From a subgroup analysis, the recurrence rates for stage IA tumors treated with CON and RT were 0.4%(0.0%-1.9%) and 0.7%(0.0%-2.3%), respectively; and for stage IB were 0.6%(0.0%-2.7%) and 2.3%(0.9%-4.1%).
conclusionFertility-sparing treatment including CON or RT for eCC is feasible and carefully selected women can preserve fertility and achieve pregnancy resulting in live births. CON seems to result in better pregnancy outcomes than RT with similar rates of recurrence and mortality.
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.