Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30036225›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society2018

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Uterine-Preserving Surgery in Young Women With Stage Ib1 Cervical Cancer.

Jill H Tseng, Alessia Aloisi, Yukio Sonoda, Ginger J Gardner, Oliver Zivanovic, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum, Mario M Leitao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Outcome and Subsequent Pregnancy after Fertility-Sparing Surgery of Early-Stage Cervical Cancers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Jill H TsengGynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Alessia Aloisi
Yukio Sonoda
Ginger J Gardner
Oliver Zivanovic
Nadeem R Abu-Rustum
Mario M Leitao
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate oncologic outcomes of women with stage IB1 cervical cancer treated with uterine-preserving surgery (UPS) (defined as conization or trachelectomy) versus non-UPS (defined as hysterectomy of any type).

methodsThe Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to identify women younger than 45 years diagnosed with stage IB1 cervical cancer from 1998 to 2012. Only those who underwent lymph node (LN) assessment were included. Outcomes of UPS versus non-UPS were analyzed.

resultsAmong 2717 patients, 125 were treated with UPS and 2592 were treated with non-UPS. Those in the UPS group were younger (median age 33 vs 37 years, P < 0.001), less commonly had tumor size greater than 2 cm (27% vs 45%, P < 0.001), and less commonly received adjuvant radiation therapy (18% vs 29%, P = 0.006). There was no difference in distribution of tumor grade, histology, or rate of LN positivity. Median follow-up was 79 months (range, 0-179). There was no difference in 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) between the UPS versus non-UPS groups (93% vs 94%, respectively, P = 0.755). When stratified by tumor size, DSS for UPS versus non-UPS was as follows: tumors 2 cm or less, 96.8% versus 96.3% (P = 0.683); tumors greater than 2 cm, 82.4% versus 90.4% (P = 0.112). Factors independently associated with worsened survival included adenosquamous histology (hazard ratio [HR] 2.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]1.51-3.47), G3 disease (HR 2.44, 95% CI 1.01-5.89), tumor size greater than 2 cm (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.36-2.75) and LN positivity (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.64-3.22). The UPS was not associated with a higher risk of death.

conclusionsThe UPS does not seem to compromise oncologic outcomes in a select group of young women with stage IB1 cervical cancer, especially in the setting of tumors 2 cm or less. Further studies are needed to clarify the role of UPS in tumors greater than 2 cm.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAge FactorsFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm StagingOrgan Sparing TreatmentsRetrospective StudiesSEER ProgramTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30036225
PMCPMC6108950
OpenAlexW2885007432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.