Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32062731›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2020

Laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤ 2 cm: a case-matched control study.

Chunlin Chen, Ping Liu, Yan Ni, Lian Tang, Yan Xu, Xiaonong Bin, Jinghe Lang

Abstract readControlled Clinical TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Time to accept a new old standard of care in cervical cancer.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Cervical Cancer Surgery: Current State of Affairs.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapy
    Review
  18. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Chunlin ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No. 1838, Guangzhou Avenue, Guangzhou, 510515, China. ccl1@smu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1708-3047
Ping LiuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No. 1838, Guangzhou Avenue, Guangzhou, 510515, China.
Yan NiDepartment of Gynecology, Yuncheng Central Hospital, Yuncheng, Shanxi, China.
Lian TangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No. 1838, Guangzhou Avenue, Guangzhou, 510515, China.
Yan XuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pan Yu Central Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Xiaonong BinDepartment of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jinghe LangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No. 1838, Guangzhou Avenue, Guangzhou, 510515, China.
Nanfang Hospital · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNGuangzhou Medical University · CNPanyu District Central Hospital · CNYuncheng University · CN

Funding

Innovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (CN) 2015A030311024National Science and Technology Support Program of China 2014BAI05B03The Science and Technology Plan of Guangzhou 158100075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo investigate the survival outcomes of stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤ 2 cm who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumor size ≤ 2 cm who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy in China between 2004 and 2016. A real-world study (RWS) and 1:1 matching was used in the study.

resultsAfter 1:1 matching, laparoscopic (n = 926) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (n = 926) had similar 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates in stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumor size ≤ 2 cm. Subsequently, in cervical squamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm, the laparoscopic and abdominal groups (724 cases, respectively) showed comparable 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates. Finally, in cervical adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm, the laparoscopic group (n = 174) had a similar 5-year overall survival rate but a lower disease-free survival rate compared to those of the abdominal group (disease-free survival: 89.9% vs. 98.0%, respectively, P = 0.006; hazard ratio (HR), 5.094; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.400-18.535; P = 0.013; n = 174). The RWS results were similar to the 1:1 matching results.

conclusionsPatients with squamous cell carcinoma in stage IB1 cervical cancer with tumor size ≤ 2 cm might be suitable for laparoscopic surgery, while patients with adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm are not candidates for laparoscopic surgery.

Indexed as

AbdomenAdenocarcinomaAdultCarcinoma, AdenosquamousCarcinoma, Squamous CellCase-Control StudiesChinaDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansHysterectomyLaparoscopyMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAbdominal radical hysterectomyCervical cancerLaparoscopic radical hysterectomySurvival outcomeTumor size

Identifiers

PMID32062731
OpenAlexW3006358924

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.