Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29081219›Full record

ArticleCancer research and treatment2018

The Prognostic Impact of the Number of Metastatic Lymph Nodes and a New Prognostic Scoring System for Recurrence in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer with High Risk Factors: A Multicenter Cohort Study (KROG 15-04).

Jeanny Kwon, Keun-Young Eom, Young Seok Kim, Won Park, Mison Chun, Jihae Lee, Yong Bae Kim, Won Sup Yoon, Jin Hee Kim, Jin Hwa Choi and 4 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The inhibition of YTHDF3/mInternational journal of biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Jeanny KwonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea.
Keun-Young EomDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Young Seok KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Won ParkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Mison ChunDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.
Jihae LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yong Bae KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Won Sup YoonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Ansan, Korea.
Jin Hee KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.
Jin Hwa ChoiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Sei Kyung ChangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, CHA Bundang Medicial Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
Bae Kwon JeongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, Korea.
Seok Ho LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Gachon University of Medicine and Science, Incheon, Korea.
Jihye ChaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, Wonju, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to assess prognostic value of metastatic pelvic lymph node (mPLN) in early-stage cervical cancer treated with radical surgery followed by postoperative chemoradiotherapy. Also, we sought to define a high-risk group using prognosticators for recurrence. MATERIALS AND

methodsA multicenter retrospective study was conducted using the data from 13 Korean institutions from 2000 to 2010. A total of 249 IB-IIA patients with high-risk factors were included. We evaluated distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in relation to clinicopathologic factors including pNstage, number of mPLN, lymph node (LN)ratio (number of positive LN/number of harvested LN), and log odds of mPLNs (log(number of positive LN+0.5/number of negative LN+0.5)).

resultsIn univariate analysis, histology (squamous cell carcinoma [SqCC] vs. others), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), number of mPLNs (≤ 3 vs. > 3), LN ratio (≤ 17% vs. > 17%), and log odds of mPLNs (≤ ‒0.58 vs. > ‒0.58) were significant prognosticators for DMFS and DFS. Resection margin involvement only affected DFS. No significant survival difference was observed between pN0 patients and patients with 1-3 mPLNs. Multivariate analysis revealed that mPLN > 3, LVI, and non-SqCC were unfavorable index for both DMFS (p < 0.001, p=0.020, and p=0.031, respectively) and DFS (p < 0.001, p=0.017, and p=0.001, respectively). A scoring system using these three factors predicts risk of recurrence with relatively high concordance index (DMFS, 0.69; DFS, 0.71).

conclusionmPLN > 3 in early-stage cervical cancer affects DMFS and DFS. A scoring system using mPLNs > 3, LVI, and non-SqCC could stratify risk groups of recurrence in surgically resected early-stage cervix cancer with high-risk factors.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCarcinoma, Squamous CellChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleHumansHysterectomyLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPelvisPrognosisRepublic of KoreaRetrospective StudiesAdjuvant treatmentCombined modality therapyLymphatic metastasisScoring systemUterine cervical neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29081219
PMCPMC6056979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.