Observational studyInternational journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society2020
SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer.
Observational study in International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06836869 (A Multicenter, Non-inferiority Trial to Compare the Effectiveness and Safety of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Incorporating Modified Tumor-free Techniques Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients With Stage IB2 Cervical Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 124 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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.
A Multicenter, Non-inferiority Trial to Compare the Effectiveness and Safety of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Incorporating Modified Tumor-free Techniques Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients With Stage IB2 Cervical Cancer
Who cites it
124 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 292 citations in OpenAlex.
- SEOM-GEICO Clinical Guidelines on cervical cancer (2023).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Guideline
- Clinical practice guidelines for cervical cancer: the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Guideline
- Comparison of survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Pooled it
- 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
- Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Survival After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Pooled it
- 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 · 2023Trial
- Effect of modified radical laparoscopic hysterectomy versus open radical hysterectomy on short-term clinical outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer: a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Trial
- Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Comparative Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- External validation of the SUCCOR Risk score for predicting recurrence in early-stage cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Observational
- The Revolution in Surgery That Saves Millions of Lives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparative in vivo assessment of surgical smoke particle exposure from different energy modalities during gynecologic laparoscopy.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy after the LACC trial, avoiding uterine manipulator, pre-colpotomy vaginal washing and clamping, and uterine removal using a retrieval bag: a retrospective study.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic type 3 radical hysterectomy with enclosed colpotomy using the Bakay technique for early-stage cervical cancer: a retrospective case series.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Analysis of prognosis in early-stage cervical cancer patients post-conization treated with laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Analysis of the temporal changes in management of early-stage cervical cancer over a 10-year period in Germany: a multicenter retrospective analysis of the JAGO/NOGGO.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Impact of laparoscopic versus open surgery on 5-year survival in patients with stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer: a retrospective cohort study.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- Article
- Outcomes of Cervical Cancer Treatment Using Total Mesometrial Resection (TMMR) Performed with the Robotic System-A Preliminary Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Complications of total laparoscopic hysterectomy: with vs. without a uterine manipulator.BMC women's health · 2025Article
64 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
49 authors at 20 institutions in 22 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer has demonstrated in recent publications worse outcomes than open surgery. The primary objective of the SUCCOR study, a European, multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study was to evaluate disease-free survival in patients with stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer undergoing open vs minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. As a secondary objective, we aimed to investigate the association between protective surgical maneuvers and the risk of relapse.
methodsWe obtained data from 1272 patients that underwent a radical hysterectomy by open or minimally invasive surgery for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) from January 2013 to December 2014. After applying all the inclusion-exclusion criteria, we used an inverse probability weighting to construct a weighted cohort of 693 patients to compare outcomes (minimally invasive surgery vs open). The first endpoint compared disease-free survival at 4.5 years in both groups. Secondary endpoints compared overall survival among groups and the impact of the use of a uterine manipulator and protective closure of the colpotomy over the tumor in the minimally invasive surgery group.
resultsMean age was 48.3 years (range; 23-83) while the mean BMI was 25.7 kg/m
conclusionsMinimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer increased the risk of relapse and death compared with open surgery. In this study, avoiding the uterine manipulator and using maneuvers to avoid tumor spread at the time of colpotomy in minimally invasive surgery was associated with similar outcomes to open surgery. Further prospective studies are warranted.
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.