Trial reportBMC cancer2020
Comparison of survival outcomes between radio-chemotherapy and radical hysterectomy with postoperative standard therapy in patients with stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: long-term oncological outcome analysis in 37 Chinese hospitals.
Trial report in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Debulking hysterectomy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy for FIGO stage (2019) IB3/II cervical cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Balancing Radicality and Function: Prospective Long-Term Outcomes of Muallem Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy Guided by an Anatomy-Oriented Classification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development and validation of the competing risk nomogram and risk classification system for predicting cancer-specific mortality in patients with cervical adenosquamous carcinoma treated via radical hysterectomy.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2025Article
- Management of Bulky Tumors in Cervical Cancer: Limits of the Surgical Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- A comparison of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and radical surgery in patients with specific locally advanced cervical cancer (stage IB3, IIA2, IIICr): trial protocol for a randomized controlled study (C-CRAL trial).Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Comparison of survival outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy and radiochemotherapy IIA2 (FIGO2018) cervical cancer: a retrospective study from a large database of 63,926 cases of cervical cancer in China.International journal of clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Radical surgery for stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer: A large retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Survival Outcomes of Patients With Stage IB3 Cervical Cancer Who Undergo Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy Versus Radiochemotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Discussion on the Treatment Strategy for Stage ⅡA1 Cervical Cancer (FIGO 2018).Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Article
- Cohort Profile: Chinese Cervical Cancer Clinical Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the survival outcomes of radio-chemotherapy (R-CT) and radical hysterectomy with postoperative standard therapy (RH) in stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer patients.
methodsBased on the large amount of diagnostic and treatment cervical cancer data in China, a real-world study and 1:1 case-control matching were used to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in cervical cancer patients.
resultsIn this real-world study, the 5-year OS and DFS in the R-CT group (n = 8949) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 18,152). After applying the inclusion criteria, the OS and DFS in the R-CT group (n = 582) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 4308). After 1:1 case-control matching, the 5-year OS and DFS in the R-CT group (n = 535) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 535) (OS: 76.1% vs. 84.6%, p < 0.001, HR = 1.819; DFS: 75.1% vs. 81.5%, p < 0.001, HR = 1.462, respectively). Further stratification showed that for stage IB1 and IIA1 patients, the 5-year OS and DFS in the R-CT group (n = 300) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 300) (OS: 78.9% vs. 87.0%, p < 0.001, HR = 2.160; DFS: 77.0% vs. 84.9%, p < 0.001, HR = 2.053, respectively). In stage IB2 and IIA2 patients, the 5-year OS in the R-CT group (n = 235) was lower than that in the RH group (n = 235) (72.5% vs. 81.5%, p = 0.039; HR = 1.550), but no difference in the 5-year DFS was found between the two groups (72.6% vs. 76.9%, p = 0.151).
conclusionsOur study found that for stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer patients, RH offers better overall survival and disease-free survival outcomes than R-CT, however, due to the inherent biases of retrospective study, it needs to be confirmed by randomized trials. In addition, we need to further understand the quality of life of the two treatments.
trial registrationregistration number: CHiCTR1800017778; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Port, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/. registration date: August 14, 2018.
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.