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.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reproductive Outcomes in Young Women with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Greater than 2 cm Undergoing Fertility-Sparing Treatment: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative frozen section at radical abdominal trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Article
- Management of Bulky Tumors in Cervical Cancer: Limits of the Surgical Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Survival status and predictors of mortality among cervical cancer patients at oncologic centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a follow up study.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Fertility-sparing surgery: a hopeful strategy for young women with cancer.Journal of medicine and life · 2023Review
- Review
- Predictors of time to death among cervical cancer patients at Tikur Anbesa specialized hospital from 2014 to 2019: A survival analysis.PloS one · 2022Article
- Manifestation of Urinary Tract Injury during Cervical Cancer Surgery Based on CT Urography Secretion Phase Images.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Review
- Review
- Outcome and Subsequent Pregnancy after Fertility-Sparing Surgery of Early-Stage Cervical Cancers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- A prognostic model guides surgical resection in cervical squamous cell carcinoma.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
- [TNM classification of gynecologic malignancies : What remains to be done beyond 2017?]Der Pathologe · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.