ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2021
The baseline recurrence risk of patients with intermediate-risk cervical cancer.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A nomogram-based prediction model for assessing the risk of vain and stump cancer recurrence following radical surgery for cervical cancer.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Comparison of postoperative adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy and no further therapy after radical surgery in intermediate-risk early-stage cervical cancer.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
- Development and validation of nomograms to recurrence and survival in patients with early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Retrospective analysis of prognosis using the Gynecology Oncology Group score of stage IB-IIA node negative uterine cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy and trachelectomy.Molecular and clinical oncology · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the prognosis of patients with intermediate-risk cervical cancer and to evaluate the necessity of adjuvant therapy.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with stage IB-II cervical cancer who underwent type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy between 2008 and 2017. In our institution, radical hysterectomy is performed as an open surgery and not as a minimally invasive surgery, and adjuvant therapy is not administered to patients with intermediate-risk cervical cancer. The intermediate-risk group included patients with 2 or more of the following factors: tumor size >4 cm, stromal invasion >1/2, and lymphovascular stromal invasion. Intermediaterisk patients with squamous cell carcinoma were included in the I-SCC group, whereas those with endocervical adenocarcinoma, usual type, or adenosquamous carcinoma were included in the I-Adeno group.
resultsThere were 34 and 18 patients in the I-SCC and I-Adeno groups, respectively. The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival rates in the I-SCC group were 90.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.3-95.7%) and 100% (95% CI, 100%), respectively, whereas those in the I-Adeno group were 54.9% (95% CI, 42.0-67.9%) and 76.1% (95% CI, 63.7-88.4%), respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that endocervical adenocarcinoma, usual type, or adenosquamous carcinoma, and tumor size >4 cm had worse RFS.
conclusionThe I-SCC group had good prognosis without adjuvant therapy; therefore, adjuvant therapy may be omitted in these patients. In contrast, the I-Adeno group had poor prognosis without adjuvant therapy; therefore, adjuvant therapy should be considered in their treatment.
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.