Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33256667›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

Propensity score-matched analysis of systemic chemotherapy versus salvage hysterectomy for persistent cervical cancer after definitive radiotherapy/concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

Munetaka Takekuma, Fumiaki Takahashi, Seiji Mabuchi, Wataru Kudaka, Koji Horie, Mariko Ikeda, Ayumi Shikama, Akira Mitsuhashi, Shoji Nagao, Shiro Suzuki and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

20 authors at 18 institutions in 1 country.

Munetaka TakekumaDepartment of Gynecology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumicho, Suntogun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. m.takekuma@scchr.jp.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0807-1845
Fumiaki TakahashiDepartment of Information Science, Iwate Medical University, Idaidori, Yahabacho, Shiwagun, Iwate, 028-3694, Japan.
Seiji MabuchiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 202 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Wataru KudakaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Graduate School of Medical Science, University of the Ryukyus, 207 Uehara, Nishiharacho, Nakagamigun, Okinawa, 903-0125, Japan.
Koji HorieDepartment of Gynecology, Saitama Cancer Center, 818 Komuro, Inamachi, Kitaadachigun, Saitama, 362-0806, Japan.
Mariko IkedaDepartment of Gynecology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Nakaonaga, Asahiku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-0815, Japan.
Ayumi ShikamaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan.
Akira MitsuhashiDepartments of Reproductive Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuoku, Chiba, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Shoji NagaoDepartment of Gynecologic Cancer, Hyogo Cancer Center, 13-70 Kitaozicho, Akashi, Hyogo, 673-8558, Japan.
Shiro SuzukiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumaicho, Showaku, Nagoya, Aichi, 466-8550, Japan.
Mika MizunoDepartment of Gynecology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Kanokoden, Chikusaku, Nagoya, Aichi, 464-8681, Japan.
Shin NishioDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahicho, Kurume, Fukuoka, 830-0011, Japan.
Hideki TokunagaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tohoku University Hospital, Seiryo-machi, Aobaku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-8574, Japan.
Yukinobu OtaDepartment of Gynecology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, 3-1-69, Otemae, Chuoku, Osaka, Osaka, 541-8567, Japan.
Takahiro KasamatsuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokyo Metropolitan Bokutoh Hospital, 4-23-15 Kotobashi, Sumidaku, Tokyo, 130-8575, Japan.
Ryo KitagawaDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 4-4-1 Komatsushima, Aobaku, Sendai, Miyagi, 981-8558, Japan.
Takafumi ToitaRadiation Therapy Center, Okinawa Chubu Hospital, 281 Aza-miyazato, Uruma, Okinawa, 904-2293, Japan.
Hiroaki KobayashiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagoshima University, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan.
Mitsuya IshikawaDepartment of Gynecology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuoku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.
Nobuo YaegashiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tohoku University Hospital, Seiryo-machi, Aobaku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-8574, Japan.
Tohoku University Hospital · JPAichi Cancer Center · JPChiba University · JPHyogo Prefectural Cancer Center · JPIwate Medical University · JPKagoshima University · JPKanagawa Prefectural Hospital Organization · JPKurume University · JPNagoya University · JPOkinawa Prefectural Chubu Hospital · JPOsaka International Cancer Institute · JPSaitama Cancer Center · JPShizuoka Cancer Center · JPThe University of Osaka · JPTohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University · JPTokyo Metropolitan Bokutoh Hospital · JPUniversity of the Ryukyus · JPUniversity of Tsukuba · JP

Funding

Japan Agency for Medical Research and Developement JP18ck0106222 and JPP19ck0106513National Cancer Center Research and Developement Fund 29-A-3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of the current study was to evaluate oncologic outcomes of patients who were treated with salvage hysterectomy (HT), compared to systemic chemotherapy (CT) for persistent cervical cancer after definitive radiotherapy (RT)/ concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

methodsPatients with persistent cervical cancer treated with definitive RT/CCRT at 35 institutions from 2005 to 2014 were reviewed retrospectively (n = 317). Those who underwent a HT for persistent cervical cancer after definitive RT/CCRT were matched with propensity scores for patients who underwent systemic CT. Oncologic outcomes between the two groups using a propensity score matched-cohort analysis were compared.

resultsA total of 142 patients with persistent cervical cancer after definitive RT/CCRT were included after matching (HT: 71, systemic CT: 71). All background factors between HT and CT groups were well balanced. Median overall survival was 3.8 and 1.5 years in the HT and CT groups, respectively (p = 0.00193, hazards ratio [HR] 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.73), Increasing residual tumor size was significantly associated with a high incomplete resection rate (p = 0.016, Odds Ratio 1.11, 95%CI 1.02-1.22). Severe late adverse events occurred in 7 patients (9.9%) in the HT cohort.

conclusionThe current study demonstrated that, when compared to systemic CT, the adoption of salvage HT for patients with persistent cervical cancer after definitive RT/CCRT reduced mortality rate by about 60%. This indicates that salvage HT could be curative treatment for those patients. Further prospective clinical trials with regard to salvage HT after RT/CCRT are warranted.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overChemoradiotherapyFemaleHumansHysterectomyMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesSalvage TherapyUterine Cervical NeoplasmsPersistent diseasesRadiotherapySalvage hysterectomySurvivalUterine cervical Cancer

Identifiers

PMID33256667
PMCPMC7708164
OpenAlexW3108190519

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.