ArticleCancer management and research2021
Lymph-Vascular Space Invasion in Patients with Stages IA2-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Treated with Laparoscopic versus Open Radical Hysterectomy.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Noninvasive prediction of lymph-vascular space invasion in cervical cancer based on ultrasomics nomogram.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Risk factors for pelvic lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer: a retrospective analysis of 186 patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the relationship between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and cervical cancer lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI) by comparing the prevalence of LVSI in cervical cancer patients who underwent LRH versus open radical hysterectomy (ORH).
methodsThe study participants were 1087 cervical cancer patients (FIGO 2009 stages IA2-IIA2) with pathologically confirmed with or without LVSI who underwent radical hysterectomy at Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University from 2013 through 2018. The patients were divided according to the type of surgical procedure into an LRH group (n=148) and an ORH group (n=939).
resultsIn the LRH group, 31.76% of patients (47/148) had LVSI-positive tumors compared to 33.23% of patients (312/939) in the ORH group; the difference was not significant (p=0.724). No between-group differences in LVSI prevalence according to lymph node metastasis, interstitial infiltration depth, differentiation degree, and parametrial infiltration were found. However, the number of LVSI-positive patients whose cervical cancer lesions >4 cm (stage I B2 and II A2) was significantly higher in the LRH group than in the ORH group (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.333, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.157-0.706, p=0.005). The 3-Year disease-free survival (DFS) in the LRH group is lower than that in the ORH group (94.75% vs 97.27%), but there was no significance (P=0.187). Furthermore, the percentage of LVSI-positive tumors in patients with lymph node metastases was significantly higher than those without lymph node metastases (OR 2.897, 95% CI 2.129-3.942, p=0.000). The 3-Year DFS were 98.22% in the LVSI negative patients and 93.78% in the LVSI positive patients, the difference was significant (P=0.002).
conclusionA higher risk of lymph node metastasis and a lower 3-Year DFS was found in the LVSI-positive patients. In case of LVSI, it would be dangerous to treat patient in laparoscopy, especially in case of cervical cancer lesions >4cm.
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.