ArticleScientific reports2017
Assessment of local treatment modalities for FIGO stage IB-IIB cervical cancer: A propensity-score matched analysis based on SEER database.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognosis of bulky pTIIB cervical cancer treated by radical hysterectomy comparing adenocarcinoma with squamous cell carcinoma using propensity score matching.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2021Article
- Prognostic alternative splicing signature in cervical squamous cell carcinoma.IET systems biology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of local treatment modalities on the survival of patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB-IIB cervical cancer, including cancer-directed surgery (CDS) alone and CDS combined with radiotherapy (RT). A total of 8,357 patients with cervical cancer between 1988 and 2013 were included in the final study cohort, including 4,298 (51.4%) patients who underwent CDS alone and 4,059 (48.6%) patients who received combination therapy. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that local treatment modalities were prognostic factors for cause-specific survival (CSS). Patients who received combination therapy had worse CSS (HR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.20-1.59; P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed the prognostic effect of local treatment modalities was significantly influenced by FIGO stage. In the propensity-score matched (PSM) dataset, CDS was associated with better CSS (P < 0.001) for patients with IB-IIA cervical cancer; nevertheless, no differences were observed in CSS (P = 0.639) for patients with IIB cervical cancer. In conclusion, radical surgery was the preferred treatment for patients with IB-IIA cervical cancer, and there was no difference between radical surgery alone and combination therapy for patients with IIB cervical cancer.
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.