Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31934296›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2019

Analysis of prognostic factors and clinical outcomes in uterine cervical carcinoma with isolated para-aortic lymph node recurrence.

Chung-Shih Chen, Yu-Che Ou, Hao Lin, Chong-Jong Wang, Hui-Chun Chen, Fu-Min Fang, Hsuan-Chih Hsu, Yu-Jie Huang, Yu-Ming Wang, Chun-Chieh Huang and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of translational research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chung-Shih ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Yu-Che OuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Hao LinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chong-Jong WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Hui-Chun ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Fu-Min FangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Hsuan-Chih HsuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Yu-Jie HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Yu-Ming WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chun-Chieh HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Shang-Yu ChouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Jen-Yu ChengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Eng-Yen HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chang Gung University · TWKaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate clinical outcomes and to identify prognostic factors in isolated para-aortic lymph node (PALN) recurrence, we retrospectively reviewed 65 patients who developed PALN recurrence as the first site of tumor progression from a total of 1521 patients who were treated with curative pelvic radiation therapy (RT) for uterine cervical carcinoma between May 1993 and January 2017. Forty-five of the 65 patients received salvage therapy. The median salvage PALN radiation dose was 54 Gy (range: 18 to 62 Gy). Prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and distant metastases (DMs) were analyzed with univariate and multivariate Cox regression. The median follow-up period for surviving patients was 61 months (4-202 months). The median OS was 27.7 months (0.3-202 months). The highest level of PALN metastases at or above the L1 spinal level (hazard ratio [HR] 9.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.44-28.38, P<0.001) and the presence of leg edema and/or back pain at recurrence (HR 3.25, 95% CI 1.57-6.75, P=0.002) were significantly associated with worse OS. A significantly higher incidence of DMs (HR 5.97, 95% CI 2.05-17.35, P=0.001) was found in the patients with a high level (≥L1) of PALN metastases. Salvage RT (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17-0.71, P=0.004) and restaging with positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) (HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.04-0.93, P=0.039) were independent predictors of a better OS. In conclusion, a high level (≥L1) of PALN metastases predicts poor survival and a high rate of DMs. Periodic surveillance for early detection and restaging by PET/CT imaging to identify the optimal treatment at recurrence is recommended.

Indexed as

cervical cancerisolated para-aortic lymph node metastasesPrognostic factorrecurrence

Identifiers

PMID31934296
PMCPMC6943452
OpenAlexW3013253333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.