ArticleCancer medicine2020
Effect of the surgical approach on survival outcomes in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A real-world multicenter study of a large Chinese cohort from 2006 to 2017.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Pooled it
- A Minimally Invasive Treatment Approach for Early-Stage Uterine Cervical Cancer: The Impact of the LACC Trial and a Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Advances in cervical cancer: current insights and future directions.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2025Review
- Clinical effect of laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer based on propensity score matching.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer stage IB1.International journal of medical sciences · 2023Article
- Effect of the surgical approach on survival outcomes in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A real-world multicenter study of a large Chinese cohort from 2006 to 2017.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare survival outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and laparotomy in early-stage cervical cancer (CC) patients.
methodsA multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO, 2009) stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion)-IIA1 CC patients undergoing MIS or laparotomy at four tertiary hospitals from 2006 to 2017. Propensity score matching and weighting and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. Survival was compared in various matched cohorts and subgroups.
resultsThree thousand two hundred and fifty-two patients (2439 MIS and 813 laparotomy) were included after matching. (1) The 2- and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) (2-year, hazard ratio [HR], 1.81;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-3.0; 5-year, HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.21-3.89) or overall survival (OS) (2-year, HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.03-3.40; 5-year, HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.29-5.10) were significantly worse for MIS in patients with stage I B1, but not the cohort overall (2-year RFS, HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.76-1.42; 2-year OS, HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70-1.41; 5-year RFS, HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.76-1.65; 5-year OS, HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.79-1.83) or other stages (2) In a subgroup analysis, MIS exhibited poorer survival in many population subsets, even in patients with less risk factors, such as patients with squamous cell carcinoma, negative for parametrial involvement, with negative surgical margins, negative for lymph node metastasis, and deep stromal invasion < 2/3. (3) In the cohort treated with (2172, 54%) or without adjuvant treatment (1814, 46%), MIS showed worse RFS than laparotomy in patients treated without adjuvant treatment, whereas no differences in RFS and OS were observed in adjuvant-treatment cohort. (4) Inadequate surgeon proficiency strongly correlated with poor RFS and OS in patients receiving MIS compared with laparotomy.
conclusionsMIS exhibited poorer survival outcomes than laparotomy group in many population subsets, even in low-risk subgroups. Therefore, laparotomy should be the recommended approach for CC patients.
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.