Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32152774›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2020

Prognostic Value and Therapeutic Implication of Laparoscopic Extraperitoneal Paraaortic Staging in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: A Spanish Multicenter Study.

Berta Díaz-Feijoo, Aureli Torné, Álvaro Tejerizo, Virginia Benito, Alicia Hernández, Rubén Ruiz, Santiago Domingo, Rocío Luna-Guibourg, Antonio Llueca, Pluvio Coronado and 5 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Radiation oncology management of stage III and IVA cervical carcinoma.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2022
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Berta Díaz-FeijooInstitute Clinic of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. bdiazfe@clinic.cat.
Aureli TornéInstitute Clinic of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Álvaro TejerizoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario, Madrid, Spain.
Virginia BenitoDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular-Materno Infantil, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Alicia HernándezDepartment of Gynecology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain.
Rubén RuizService of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Universitario Donostia, Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain.
Santiago DomingoDepartment of Gynecology Oncology, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Rocío Luna-GuibourgDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital de la Santa Creu I Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Antonio LluecaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital General Universitari de Castelló, Castelló de la Plana, Spain.
Pluvio CoronadoWomen's Health Institute, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Juan Gilabert-EstellesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital General Universitario de Valencia, Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Vicente BebiaGynecological Oncology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Blanca Gil-IbáñezInstitute Clinic of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Antonio Gil-MorenoGynecological Oncology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
SEGO Spain-GOG Group
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESHospital Universitario Insular de Gran Canaria · ESUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ESHospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe · ESHospital Universitario La Paz · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the impact of laparoscopic extraperitoneal paraaortic staging in therapeutic planning and prognosis of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) as compared with imaging staging.

methodsRetrospective multicenter study of stage IB2 and IIA2 to IVA (FIGO 2009) LACC patients who were candidates for primary chemoradiotherapy. The study (surgical) group included 634 patients undergoing laparoscopic/robotic extraperitoneal paraaortic staging treated with extended-field radiotherapy (EFRT) if lymph node involvement was confirmed. The control (imaging) group included 288 patients treated with EFRT when lymph node involvement was suspected on positron emission tomography-computed tomography scans and/or magnetic resonance imaging.

resultsIn the study group, a median of 13 (range 9-17) lymph nodes were removed, with a rate of positive paraaortic nodes of 18%, with metastatic size ≤ 5 mm in 20.4% of cases. Paraaortic EFRT was administered to 18% of patients in the study group and in 58% of controls. In 34% of patients from the surgical group, EFRT was modified according to surgical findings with respect to imaging staging. The median follow-up in the study and control groups was 3.7 and 4.8 years, respectively. In both groups, the overall survival and cancer-specific disease-free survival were similar. The time interval between diagnosis and starting EFRT was 18 days longer in the study group, without differences in overall survival as compared with controls (hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.998-1.005; p = 0.307).

conclusionsLaparoscopic extraperitoneal paraaortic staging in LACC patients is safe and modified therapeutic planning, allowing better selection of candidates for EFRT.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID32152774
OpenAlexW3010925809

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.