Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33293284›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society2020

Surgical versus clinical staging prior to primary chemoradiation in patients with cervical cancer FIGO stages IIB-IVA: oncologic results of a prospective randomized international multicenter (Uterus-11) intergroup study.

Simone Marnitz, Audrey Tieko Tsunoda, Peter Martus, Marcelo Vieira, Renato Jose Affonso Junior, João Nunes, Volker Budach, Hermann Hertel, Alexander Mustea, Jalid Sehouli and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Simone MarnitzDepartment of Radiooncology, Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany simone.marnitz-schulze@uk-koeln.de.
Audrey Tieko TsunodaGynecologic Oncology Department, Hospital Erasto Gaertner, Curitiba, Brazil.
Peter MartusInstitute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen Faculty of Medicine, Tubingen, Germany.
Marcelo VieiraDepartment for Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital de Amor de Barretos, Barretos, Brazil.
Renato Jose Affonso JuniorDepartment of Radiooncology, Hospital de Amor de Barretos, Barretos, Brazil.
João NunesGynecologic Oncology Department, Hospital Erasto Gaertner, Curitiba, Brazil.
Volker BudachDepartment of Radiooncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Hermann HertelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Alexander MusteaDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Jalid SehouliDepartment of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Jens-Peter ScharfDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Sana-Clinics Berlin Lichtenberg, Berlin, Germany.
Uwe UlrichDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Martin-Luther-Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas EbertOutpatient Clinics for Women's Health, Berlin, Germany.
Iris PiwonskiInstitute of Pathology, Charite Medical Faculty Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christhardt KohlerDepartment of Gynecology, University of Cologne, Koln, Germany.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHospital de Câncer de Barretos · BRHospital Erasto Gaertner · BRAsklepios Klinik Altona · DEHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEMartin-Luther-Krankenhaus · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DESana Klinikum Lichtenberg · DEUniversity of Bonn · DEUniversity of Cologne · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRevised staging of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer is based on clinical examination, imaging, and potential surgical findings. A known limitation of imaging techniques is an appreciable rate of understaging. In contrast, surgical staging may provide more accurate information on lymph node involvement. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the impact of pre-treatment surgical staging, including removal of bulky lymph nodes, on disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.

methodsUterus-11 was a prospective international multicenter study including patients with locally advanced cervical cancer who were randomized 1:1 to surgical staging (experimental arm) or clinical staging (control arm) followed by primary platinum-based chemoradiation. Patients with histologically proven squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous cancer International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IIB-IVA underwent gynecologic examination and pre-treatment imaging including abdominal computed tomography (CT) and/or abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients had chest imaging (any of the following: X-ray, CT, or PET-CT). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the secondary endpoint was overall survival. An ad hoc analysis was performed after trial completion for cancer-specific survival. Randomization was conducted from February 2009 to August 2013.

resultsA total of 255 patients (surgical arm, n=130; clinical arm, n=125) with locally advanced cervical cancer were randomized. Of these, 240 patients were eligible for analysis. The two groups were comparable with respect to patient characteristics. The surgical approach was transperitoneal laparoscopy in most patients (96.6%). Laparoscopic staging led to upstaging in 39 of 120 (33%) patients. After a median follow-up of 90 months (range 1-123) in both arms, there was no difference in disease-free survival between the groups (p=0.084). For patients with FIGO stage IIB, surgical staging is superior to clinical staging with respect to disease-free survival (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.86, p=0.011). In the post-hoc analysis, surgical staging was associated with better cancer-specific survival (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.93, p=0.020).

conclusionOur study did not show a difference in disease-free survival between surgical and clinical staging in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. There was a significant benefit in disease-free survival for patients with FIGO stage IIB and, in a post-hoc analysis, a cancer-specific survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic staging. The high risk of distant metastases in both arms emphasizes the need for further evaluation.

Indexed as

AdultAgedChemoradiotherapyDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingProspective StudiesSurvival RateUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung Adultcervical cancerlaparoscopesoperativeradiation oncologysurgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID33293284
PMCPMC7788482
OpenAlexW3113293261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.