ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2021
Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm cervical cancer with visible or invisible tumors: a multicentre retrospective study.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival outcomes.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Robotic versus traditional laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy with no-manipulation technique: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Key cell cycle genes in cervical cancer and their potential role in neuromuscular complications: a bioinformatics perspective.European journal of translational myology · 2025Article
- Targeted drug delivery in cervical carcinoma: the role of gold nanoparticles in enhancing treatment efficacy.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- Long-Term Survival in Patients With Low-Risk Cervical Cancer After Simple, Modified, or Radical Hysterectomy.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The sealing effect of magnetic-sealing uterine manipulator in isolated uterus from patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a pre-clinical study.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- Robotic Single-Site Radical Hysterectomy for Early Cervical Cancer: A Single Center Experience of 5 Years.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Added value of radiomics analysis in MRI invisible early-stage cervical cancers.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Retrospective Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer in a Single Tertiary Care Institution from Lithuania between 2009 and 2019.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Association of preoperative cone biopsy with recurrences after radical hysterectomy.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- Discussion on the rationality of FIGO 2018 stage IIIC for cervical cancer with oncological outcomes: a cohort study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Effect of Quality Control Program in Surgical Management of Early Cervical Cancer.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Article
- Post-LACC era: critical assessment not "all-or-none" is needed.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2021Article
- Survival Outcomes in Patients With 2018 FIGO Stage IA2-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Treated With LaparoscopicFrontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Results in Higher Recurrence Rate Versus Open Abdominal Surgery for Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer Patients With Tumor Size Less Than 2 Centimeter: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Comparison of survival between open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomies for stage IB1 cervical cancer (≤2 cm): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Tzu chi medical journalArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm with visible or invisible tumors.
methodsWe retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes of 1,484 cervical cancer patients with IB1 and tumor size <2 cm on final pathology, who received ARH (n=899) or LRH (n=585) between January 2004 and December 2016. Patients were divided into visible tumor subgroup (ARH: n=668, LRH: n=444) and invisible tumor subgroup (ARH: n=231, LRH: n=141) according to tumor type.
resultsLRH and ARH showed similar 5-year DFS and OS rates (93.3% vs. 93.1%, p=0.997; 96.2% vs. 97.5%, p=0.351) in total study population. LRH was not associated with worse 5-year DFS rate (hazard ratio [HR]=0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.58-1.58; p=0.871) or OS rate (HR=1.37; 95% CI=0.65-2.89; p=0.409) by multivariable analysis. In the visible tumor subgroups, LRH and ARH showed similar 5-year DFS and OS rates (91.9% vs. 91.9%, p=0.933; 95.0% vs. 96.9%, p=0.276), and LRH was not associated with worse 5-year DFS or OS rate (p=0.804, p=0.324). In the invisible tumor subgroups, LRH and ARH also showed similar 5-year DFS and OS rates (97.3% vs. 97.1%, p=0.815; 100% vs. 99.5%, p=0.449), and LRH was not associated with worse 5-year DFS rate (p=0.723).
conclusionsAmong patients with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm, whether the tumor is visible or not, the oncological outcomes of LRH and ARH among cervical cancer patients are comparable. This suggests that LRH may be suitable for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm with visible or invisible tumors.
trial registrationInternational Clinical Trials Registry Platform Identifier: CHiCTR180017778.
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.