Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31788991›Full record

ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2020

The prognostic value of lymph node ratio in stage IIIC cervical cancer patients triaged to primary treatment by radical hysterectomy with systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.

Koray Aslan, Mehmet Mutlu Meydanli, Murat Oz, Yusuf Aytac Tohma, Ali Haberal, Ali Ayhan

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Koray AslanDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health Training and Research Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey. aslan_koray@yahoo.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3432-7381
Mehmet Mutlu MeydanliDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health Training and Research Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6763-9720
Murat OzDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health Training and Research Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0629-5386
Yusuf Aytac TohmaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9418-4733
Ali HaberalDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1486-7209
Ali AyhanDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7155-9096

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of lymph node ratio (LNR) in women with 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIIC cervical cancer.

methodsIn this retrospective dual-institutional study, a total of 185 node-positive cervical cancer patients who had undergone radical hysterectomy with systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy were included. All of the patients received adjuvant chemoradiation after surgery. LNR was defined as the ratio of positive lymph nodes (LNs) to the total number of LNs removed. The patients were categorized into 2 groups according to LNR; LNR <0.05 and LNR ≥0.05. The prognostic value of LNR was evaluated with univariate log-rank tests and multivariate Cox regression models.

resultsA total of 138 patients (74.6%) had stage IIIC1 disease and 47 (25.4%) patients had stage IIIC2 disease. With a median follow-up period of 45.5 months (range 3-135 months), the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 62.5% whereas the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 70.4% for the entire study population. The 5-year DFS rates for LNR <0.05 and LNR ≥0.05 were 78.2%, and 48.4%, respectively (p<0.001). Additionally, the 5-year OS rates for LNR <0.05 and LNR ≥0.05 were 80.6%, and 61.2%, respectively (p=0.007). On multivariate analysis, LNR ≥0.05 was associated with a worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR]=2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.15-3.90; p=0.015) and OS (HR=1.95; 95% CI=1.01-3.77; p=0.046) in women with stage IIIC cervical cancer.

conclusionsLNR ≥0.05 seems to be an independent prognostic factor for decreased DFS and OS in stage IIIC cervical carcinoma.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkersChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansHysterectomyLymph Node ExcisionLymph Node RatioLymph NodesMiddle AgedProgression-Free SurvivalRetrospective StudiesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsBiomarkersDisease-Free SurvivalLymph Node DissectionLymph NodesSurvival AnalysisUterine Cervical Cancer

Identifiers

PMID31788991
PMCPMC6918892

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.