ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2021
Uterine corpus invasion in cervical cancer: a multicenter retrospective case-control study.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Construction of refined staging classification systems integrating FIGO/T-categories and corpus uterine invasion for non-metastatic cervical cancer.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Cervical cancer invading the uterine corpus and sigmoid colon: A case report.Case reports in women's health · 2022Article
- A Research Study to Measure the Efficacy of Terminating Cervical Cancer via Customized Optimum Pathway.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Construction of Nursing Practice Model in Case Management of Concurrent Chemotherapy and Radiochemotherapy Treatment in Cervical Cancer.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the accuracy of uterine corpus invasion (UCI) diagnosis in patients with cervical cancer and identity risk factors for UCI and depth of invasion.
methodsClinical data of patients with cervical cancer who underwent hysterectomy between 2004 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. UCI was assessed on uterine pathology. Independent risk factors for UCI and depth of invasion were identified using binary and ordinal logistic regression models, respectively.
resultsA total of 2,212 patients with cervical cancer from 11 medical institutions in China were included in this study. Of these, 497 patients had cervical cancer and UCI, and 1,715 patients had cervical cancer and no UCI, according to the original pathology reports. Retrospective review of the original pathology reports revealed a missed diagnosis of UCI in 54 (10.5%) patients and a misdiagnosis in 36 (2.1%) patients. Therefore, 515 patients with cervical cancer and UCI (160 patients with endometrial invasion, 176 patients with myometrial invasion < 50%, and 179 patients with myometrial invasion ≥ 50%), and 1697 patients with cervical cancer without UCI were included in the analysis. Older age, advanced stage, tumor size, adenocarcinoma, parametrial involvement, resection margin involvement, and lymph node metastasis were independent risk factors for UCI. These risk factors, except resection margin involvement, were independently associated with depth of UCI.
conclusionsUCI may be missed or misdiagnosed in patients with cervical cancer on postoperative pathological examination. Older age, advanced stage, tumor size, adenocarcinoma, parametrial involvement, resection margin involvement, and lymph node metastasis were independent risk factors for UCI and depth of UCI, with the exception of resection margin involvement.
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.