ArticleMedicine2020
Clinicopathological risk factors in the light of the revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for early cervical cancer with staging IB: A single center retrospective study.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Significance of Clinicopathological Factors Influencing Overall Survival and Event-Free Survival of Patients with Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022Pooled it
- Influence of New FIGO 2018 Staging on Treatment Outcomes in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Single-Center Study.South Asian journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Development of a Novel Deep Learning-Based Prediction Model for the Prognosis of Operable Cervical Cancer.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To validate the revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system for cervical cancer on the survival of patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for 2009 FIGO stage IB carcinomas.We retrospectively identified and reviewed 251 patients treated with radical hysterectomy for 2009 FIGO stage IB cervical carcinomas from January 2011 to December 2016. The re-staged IB cohort consisted of 2018 FIGO stage IB1 (tumor size <2 cm), IB2 (2-3.9 cm), IB3 (≥4 cm), and IIIC1p (any pelvic nodal metastasis) cervical cancer. The univariate log-rank test and multivariate Cox regression models were performed for all potential clinic pathological risk factors based on cancer stage.On re-staging the 251 patients with 2009 FIGO stage IB using the 2018 FIGO staging system, 96 patients (38.2%) had stage IB1, 109 patients (43.4%) had stage IB2, 28 patients (11.2%) had stage IB3, and 18 patients (7.2%) had stage IIIC1p. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of patients with 2018 FIGO stage IB1, IB2, IB3, and IIIC1p were 97.9%, 92.7%, 78.6%, and 61.1%, respectively. The 5-year progression-free survival rates were 97.9%, 92.7%,63.7%, and 20.8%, respectively. Factors significantly affecting OS and disease-free survival were 2018 FIGO stage≥IB3, histologic grade 2-3, and lymph node involvement.The revised 2018 FIGO staging system seemed to accurately reflect the survival rate, with a distinct statistical tendency for poorer 5-year disease-free survival and OS rates with increasing stage. Women with positive lymph nodes in this classification were classified as having stage IIIC disease, which can achieve more realistic survival results than the previous staging system. The prognostic discrimination of histologic grade should be considered when revising the staging system in the future.
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.