ArticleCancer management and research2019
Survival After Abdominal Q-M Type B versus C2 Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- The long-term outcomes of clinical responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery in locally advanced cervical cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Treatment of FIGO 2018 stage IIIC cervical cancer with different local tumor factors.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Impact of HR-HPV infection on oncological outcomes in early cervical cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Evaluation of individualized para-tumor resection of cervical cancer patients based on three-dimensional reconstruction.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Abdominal type B vs. type C radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: A matched single center cohort report.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for low-risk cervical cancer: a multicentre retrospective study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- Survival Outcomes of Patients With Stage IB3 Cervical Cancer Who Undergo Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy Versus Radiochemotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Comparison of the Oncological Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer Based on the New FIGO 2018 Staging System: A Multicentre Retrospective Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Discussion on the Treatment Strategy for Stage ⅡA1 Cervical Cancer (FIGO 2018).Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for 2018 FIGO stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 cervical cancer: a large multicenter study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Discussion on the rationality of FIGO 2018 stage IIIC for cervical cancer with oncological outcomes: a cohort study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm cervical cancer with visible or invisible tumors: a multicentre retrospective study.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤ 2 cm: a case-matched control study.International journal of clinical oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the survival outcomes of abdominal Q-M type B and type C2 radical hysterectomy (RH) for early-stage (IA1 (lymphovascular invasion)-IIA2) cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND
methodsBased on this multicenter, retrospective cohort study on the clinical diagnosis and treatment for cervical cancer in China (Four C), the survival outcomes of abdominal type B and type C2 RH for early-stage cervical cancer were compared under real-world and matched cohort study conditions.
resultsIn total, 46,313 cases were included in the Four C database, among whom 20,018 underwent abdominal type B or type C2 RH. In the real-world study, no differences were found in the 5-year overall survival (OS) between the type B group (n=15,471) and type C2 group (n=4547), but the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was lower in the type C2 group (82.1 vs 84.8%, hazard ratio: 1.144). Based on the inclusion criteria, 9135 cases were included and the type C2 group (n=1818) was found to have a lower 5-year OS and DFS (OS: 89.5 vs 92.0%, hazard ratio: 1.393; DFS: 84.3 vs 87.4%, hazard ratio: 1.342). Subsequently, 1799 cases from each group were matched and the type C2 group had a lower 5-year DFS (84.6 vs 88.4%, hazard ratio: 1.332). Upon further analysis of the subgroups, the type C2 group had a lower 5-year OS and DFS (OS: 90.3 vs 93.8%, hazard ratio: 1.522; DFS: 85.2 vs 89.4%, hazard ratio: 1.439).
conclusionQ-M type B RH could be used for the treatment of stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion)-IIA2 cervical cancer.
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.