ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2018
Secondary cytoreductive surgery potentially improves the oncological outcomes of patients with recurrent uterine sarcomas.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Recurrent Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: Results of a Phase 2 Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Trial
- Extended and Repeated Cytoreductive Surgery in Recurrent Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of women with recurrent uterine leiomyosarcoma.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- Evaluation of treatment results and prognostic factors of uterine sarcoma: A single-center experience.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2020Article
- Role of surgery in gynaecological sarcomas.Oncotarget · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uterine sarcomas are some of the most malignant and aggressive tumor types among the gynecologic malignancies, and they are associated with a high rate of recurrence and a poor prognosis. Due to their rarity and diversity, the optimal treatment for recurrent uterine sarcomas has not yet been elucidated. The aim of the present study was to investigate the potential of secondary cytoreductive surgery (SCS) for patients with recurrent uterine sarcomas. A total of 18 patients with recurrent uterine sarcomas were retrospectively identified at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nagoya University (Nagoya, Japan) between January 2002 and December 2015. This included 8 patients with leiomyosarcoma, 6 with carcinosarcoma, 3 with endometrial stromal sarcoma and 1 with adenosarcoma. All patients underwent primary debulking surgery as the initial treatment. In summary, 9 patients were treated with SCS when they experienced their first recurrence, and the other 9 patients were treated with non-SCS methods, including chemotherapy or radiotherapy. In the SCS group, 5/9 patients had confined pelvic recurrences, 3 patients had extra-pelvic diseases, including pulmonary metastasis, and one patient had intra- and extra-pelvic recurrence. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 77.8 and 11.1% in the SCS and non-SCS groups, respectively. The patients who underwent SCS experienced a significantly longer OS time compared with those in the non-SCS group (P=0.006). In addition, the disease-free survival after second-line therapy was significantly longer in the SCS group than in the non-SCS group (P=0.0496). These findings suggest that resection of recurrent uterine sarcomas may be beneficial for the improvement of patient survival. Prospective studies with sufficient statistical power are warranted for further evaluation of the effect of SCS.
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.