ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2020
Impact of a reduction in follow-up frequency on life expectancy in uterine cervical cancer patients.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with recurrent cervical cancer developed in previously irradiated field: clinical and immunohistochemical investigations.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Article
- Patient Voices: What Can We Learn From the Covid-19 Pandemic About Follow-Up Care in Gynaecologic Oncology?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Significance of the Number and the Location of Metastatic Lymph Nodes in Locally Recurrent or Persistent Cervical Cancer Patients Treated with Salvage Hysterectomy plus Lymphadenectomy.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- A Research Study to Measure the Efficacy of Terminating Cervical Cancer via Customized Optimum Pathway.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe appropriate interval of post-treatment follow-up appointments for uterine cervical cancer is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of reducing the frequency of post-treatment follow-up examinations on life expectancy and medical expenses in cervical cancer patients.
methodsCervical cancer patients who were treated with radiotherapy between 2008 and 2017, underwent a less frequent follow-up program, and subsequently developed recurrent disease were included in consecutive group (CG). Non-randomized groups of cervical cancer patients who underwent a frequent follow-up program after radiotherapy between 1997 and 2007, and subsequently developed recurrent disease were also identified through a chart review and served as a comparison group (primary group [PG]). Clinical data regarding the primary disease, follow-up, recurrence, and survival were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses of predictors of survival were performed.
resultsA total of 263 recurrent cervical cancer patients (PG: 154, CG: 109) were included in the current study. A reduction in follow-up frequency of up to 40% did not increase the frequency of symptomatic recurrence (PG: vs. CG: 31.2% vs. 35.8%, p = 0.43) or reduce the median overall survival periods of recurrent cervical cancer patients (PG vs. CG: 32 months vs. 36 months, p = 0.15). However, the reduction in the follow-up frequency significantly reduced follow-up costs.
conclusionReducing the frequency of follow-up by up to 40% did not result in shorter overall survival compared with a conventional follow-up program. The results of this study provide a rationale for future studies investigating the optimal follow-up schedule for patients with cervical cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32152766What 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.