Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32486512›Full record

ArticleCancers2020

Micrometastases in Sentinel Lymph Nodes Represent a Significant Negative Prognostic Factor in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study.

Roman Kocian, Jiri Slama, Daniela Fischerova, Anna Germanova, Andrea Burgetova, Ladislav Dusek, Pavel Dundr, Kristyna Nemejcova, Jiri Jarkovsky, Silvie Sebestova and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. MILACC study: could undetected lymph node micrometastases have impacted recurrence rate in the LACC trial?International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2023
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Roman KocianGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-5896-4158
Jiri SlamaGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
Daniela FischerovaGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
Anna GermanovaGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
Andrea BurgetovaDepartment of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
Ladislav DusekInstitute of Biostatistics and Analyses; Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic.
Pavel DundrDepartment of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
Kristyna NemejcovaDepartment of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-9340-9320
Jiri JarkovskyInstitute of Biostatistics and Analyses; Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic.
Silvie SebestovaInstitute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, 128 01 Prague, Czech Republic.
Filip FruhaufGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
Lukas DostalekGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
Tereza BallaschovaGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
David CibulaGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-6387-9356
Charles University · CZMasaryk University · CZInstitute of Health Information and Statistics · CZ

Funding

Agentura Pro Zdravotnický Výzkum České Republiky No 16-31643AAgentura Pro Zdravotnický Výzkum České Republiky NV19-03-00023The project "International Mobility of Researchers at Charles University" is supported by the Operational Programme Research, Development and Education reg. n. CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/16_027/0008495Univerzita Karlova v Praze PROGRES Q28/LF1Univerzita Karlova v Praze UNCE 204065
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The data on the prognostic significance of low volume metastases in lymph nodes (LN) are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze the outcome of a large group of patients treated with sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy at a single referral center. Patients with cervical cancer, stage T1a-T2b, common tumor types, negative LN on preoperative staging, treated by primary surgery between 01/2007 and 12/2016, with at least unilateral SLN detection were included. Patients with abandoned radical surgery due to intraoperative SLN positivity detected by frozen section were excluded. All SLNs were postoperatively processed by an intensive protocol for pathological ultrastaging. Altogether, 226 patients were analyzed. Positive LN were detected in 38 (17%) cases; macrometastases (MAC), micrometastases (MIC), isolated tumor cells (ITC) in 14, 16, and 8 patients. With the median follow-up of 65 months, 22 recurrences occurred. Disease-free survival (DFS) reached 90% in the whole group, 93% in LN-negative cases, 89% in cases with MAC, 69% with MIC, and 87% with ITC. The presence of MIC in SLN was associated with significantly decreased DFS and OS. Patients with MIC and MAC should be managed similarly, and SLN ultrastaging should become an integral part of the management of patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

Indexed as

cervical cancerisolated tumor cellsmicrometastasispathological ultrastagingprognostic parametersrisk of recurrencesentinel lymph node

Identifiers

PMID32486512
PMCPMC7352782
OpenAlexW3031359806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.