Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29728073›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2018

Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix: a systematic review of the literature.

Clemens B Tempfer, Iris Tischoff, Askin Dogan, Ziad Hilal, Beate Schultheis, Peter Kern, Günther A Rezniczek

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 133 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
133citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

133 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 253 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The Diagnosis, Treatment, and Aftercare of Cervical Carcinoma.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

73 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Clemens B TempferDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany. clemens.tempfer@rub.de.
Iris TischoffDepartment of Pathology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Askin DoganDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Ziad HilalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Beate SchultheisDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Peter KernDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Elisabeth Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
Günther A RezniczekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Ruhr University Bochum · DESt. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix (NECC) is a rare variant of cervical cancer. The prognosis of women with NECC is poor and there is no standardized therapy for this type of malignancy based on controlled trials.

methodsWe performed a systematic literature search of the databases PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical trials describing the management and outcome of women with NECC.

resultsThree thousand five hundred thirty-eight cases of NECC in 112 studies were identified. The pooled proportion of NECC among women with cervical cancer was 2303/163470 (1.41%). Small cell NECC, large cell NECC, and other histological subtypes were identified in 80.4, 12.0, and 7.6% of cases, respectively. Early and late stage disease presentation were evenly distributed with 1463 (50.6%) and 1428 (49.4%) cases, respectively. Tumors expressed synaptophysin (424/538 cases; 79%), neuron-specific enolase (196/285 cases; 69%), chromogranin (323/486 cases; 66%), and CD56 (162/267; 61%). The most common primary treatment was radical surgery combined with chemotherapy either as neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, described in 42/48 studies. Radiotherapy-based primary treatment schemes in the form of radiotherapy, radiochemotherapy, or radiotherapy with concomitant or followed by chemotherapy were also commonly used (15/48 studies). There is no standard chemotherapy regimen for NECC, but cisplatin/carboplatin and etoposide (EP) was the most commonly used treatment scheme (24/40 studies). Overall, the prognosis of women with NECC was poor with a mean recurrence-free survival of 16 months and a mean overall survival of 40 months. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted agents were reported as being active in three case reports.

conclusionNECC is a rare variant of cervical cancer with a poor prognosis. Multimodality treatment with radical surgery and neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide with or without radiotherapy is the mainstay of treatment for early stage disease while chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide or topotecan, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab is appropriate for women with locally advanced or recurrent NECC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors may be beneficial, but controlled evidence for their efficacy is lacking.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, NeuroendocrineCervix UteriChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHumansHysterectomyNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisSurvival RateTreatment OutcomeUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCervical cancerChemotherapyLarge cell cancerNeuroendocrineRadical surgerySmall cell cancer

Identifiers

PMID29728073
PMCPMC5935948
OpenAlexW2799468356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.