ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2020
Association between surgical approach and survival following resection of abdominopelvic malignancies.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesRecent studies demonstrating decreased survival following minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical cancer have generated concern regarding oncologic efficacy of MIS. Our objective was to evaluate the association between surgical approach and 5-year survival following resection of abdominopelvic malignancies.
methodsPatients with stage I or II adenocarcinoma of the prostate, colon, rectum, and stage IA2 or IB1 cervical cancer from 2010-2015 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base. The association between surgical approach and 5-year survival was assessed using propensity-score-matched cohorts. Distributions were compared using logistic regression. Hazard ratio for death was estimated using Cox proportional-hazard models.
resultsThe rate of deaths at 5 years was 3.4% following radical prostatectomy, 22.9% following colectomy, 18.6% following proctectomy, and 6.8% following radical hysterectomy. Open surgery was associated with worse survival following radical prostatectomy (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.33; P = .005), colectomy (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.39-1.51; P < .001), and proctectomy (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.50; P = .002); however, open surgery was associated with improved survival following radical hysterectomy (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.82; P = .003).
conclusionsThese results suggest that MIS is an acceptable approach in selected patients with prostate, colon, and rectal cancers, while concerns regarding MIS resection of cervical cancer appear warranted.
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.