Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31941966›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

A Risk Stratification for Patients with Cervical Cancer in Stage IIIC1 of the 2018 FIGO Staging System.

Xiaoliang Liu, Weiping Wang, Ke Hu, Fuquan Zhang, Xiaorong Hou, Junfang Yan, Qingyu Meng, Ziqi Zhou, Zheng Miao, Hui Guan and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Research Progress in the Relationship Between P2X7R and Cervical Cancer.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

14 authors.

Xiaoliang LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Weiping WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Ke HuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China. huk@pumch.cn.
Fuquan ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China. Zhangfq@pumch.cn.
Xiaorong HouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Junfang YanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Qingyu MengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Ziqi ZhouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Zheng MiaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Hui GuanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Jiabin MaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Jing ShenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Hongnan ZhenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Wenhui WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This retrospective study was designed to investigate the heterogeneity of patients with cervical cancer in stage IIIC1 (the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system, FIGO) and conduct a risk stratification for this group of patients. We reviewed clinical records of 325 patients with stage IIIC1 treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy in our institute between January 2008 and December 2014. The median follow-up duration was 28.4 months (range: 1.9-114.2 months). The 3-year DFS for the 325 eligible patients was 66.3%. Tumor size of ≥4 cm and number of pelvic lymph node metastasis ≥2 were identified as adverse prognostic factors for disease free survival (DFS) in cervical cancer patients with stage IIIC1 (2018). A risk stratification based on the number of identified prognostic factors for DFS was performed. The 3-year DFS for patients in low-risk (without prognostic factor), intermediate-risk (with one prognostic factor) and high-risk group (with two prognostic factors) was 92.1%, 70.0%, and 51.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). Our study confirms the heterogeneity of patients with cervical cancer in FIGO stage IIIC1 (the 2018 FIGO staging system). Tumor size and number of pelvic lymph node metastasis (PLNM) are significant prognostic factors for DFS in patients with FIGO stage IIIC1. The next revision of FIGO staging system for cervical cancer, especially for stage IIIC1, should focus on tumor size and number of pelvic lymph node metastasis.

Indexed as

Neoplasm StagingRisk AssessmentAdultAgedChemoradiotherapyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLymphatic MetastasisMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPrognosisRetrospective StudiesUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID31941966
PMCPMC6962323

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.