Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32880752›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2021

Role of minimally invasive surgery versus open approach in patients with early-stage uterine carcinosarcomas: a retrospective multicentric study.

Giacomo Corrado, Francesca Ciccarone, Francesco Cosentino, Francesco Legge, Andrea Rosati, Martina Arcieri, Luigi Carlo Turco, Camilla Certelli, Alex Federico, Enrico Vizza and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Giacomo CorradoDepartment of Woman, Child Health and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. giacomo.corrado@alice.it.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8319-6146
Francesca CiccaroneDepartment of Woman, Child Health and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2104-0602
Francesco CosentinoDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Gemelli Molise Spa, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campobasso, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8010-7064
Francesco LeggeGynecologic Oncology Unit, "F. Miulli" General Regional Hospital, Acquaviva Delle Fonti, Bari, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4733-0774
Andrea RosatiDepartment of Woman, Child Health and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3126-9400
Martina ArcieriDepartment of Woman, Child Health and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8257-0618
Luigi Carlo TurcoDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Gemelli Molise Spa, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campobasso, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3000-178X
Camilla CertelliDepartment of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8325-6946
Alex FedericoDepartment of Woman, Child Health and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4786-2487
Enrico VizzaDepartment of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5915-4555
Francesco FanfaniDepartment of Woman, Child Health and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1991-7284
Giovanni ScambiaDepartment of Woman, Child Health and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2758-1063
Gabriella FerrandinaDepartment of Woman, Child Health and Public Health, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4672-4197
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITOspedale Generale Regionale Francesco Miulli · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this retrospective study was to compare surgical and survival outcome in only patients with early-stage UCSs managed by laparotomic surgery (LPT) versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

methodsData were retrospectively collected in four Italian different institutions. Inclusion criteria were UCS diagnosis confirmed by the definitive histological examination, and stage I or II according to the FIGO staging system.

resultsBetween August 2000 and March 2019, the data relative to 170 patients bearing UCSs were collected: of these, 95 were defined as early-stage disease (stage I-II) based on the histological report at the primary surgery, and thus were included in this study. Forty-four patients were managed by LPT, and 51 patients were managed by MIS. The operative time was lower in the MIS group versus the LPT group (p value 0.021); the median estimated blood loss was less in the MIS group compared to the median of LPT group (p value < 0.0001). The length of hospital stay days was shorter in the MIS patients (p value < 0.0001). Overall, there were eight (8.4%) post-operative complications; of these, seven were recorded in the LPT group versus one in the MIS group (p value 0.023). There was no difference in the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between the two groups.

conclusionThere was no difference of oncologic outcome between the two approaches, in face of a more favourable peri-operative and post-operative profile in the MIS group.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinosarcomaChemotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleHumansHysterectomyLaparotomyLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPostoperative ComplicationsMinimally invasive surgeryOpen surgeryUterine carcinosarcoma

Identifiers

PMID32880752
PMCPMC7873090
OpenAlexW3083132351

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.