ArticleScientific reports2021
Comparing survival outcomes for cervical cancer based on the 2014 and 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging systems.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05421650 (Therapeutic Effect of Surgical Debulking of Metastatic Lymph Nodes in Cervical Cancer Stage IIICr), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
Therapeutic Effect of Surgical Debulking of Metastatic Lymph Nodes in Cervical Cancer Stage IIICr: A Phase III, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stage Migration and Validity of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 Staging System for Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study From a Tertiary Cancer Center in Nepal.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2026Article
- Rationality of FIGO 2018 IIIC cervical cancer according to local tumor and pelvic lymph node metastatic extent-a cohort study.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Enhancing TNM Stage Completeness Using the SEER Summary Stage: A Nationwide Study From Korea.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2025Article
- Therapeutic effects of surgical debulking of metastatic lymph nodes in cervical cancer IIICr: a trial protocol for a phase III, multicenter, randomized controlled study (KGOG1047/DEBULK trial).Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- Initial treatment for FIGO 2018 stage IIIC cervical cancer based on histological type: A 14-year multicenter study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Rationality of FIGO 2018 IIIC restaging of cervical cancer according to local tumor size: A cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Article
- Prognostic Analysis and Comparison of the 2014 and 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Staging System on Overall Survival in Patients with Stage IIB-IVA Cervix Carcinoma.International journal of women's health · 2022Article
- Discussion on the rationality of FIGO 2018 stage IIIC for cervical cancer with oncological outcomes: a cohort study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of survival prognosis in cervical cancer.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) cervical cancer staging system was modified in 2018, introducing new stage IB subdivisions and new lymph node status considerations in stage IIIC. We compared cervical cancer survival outcomes according to the 2014 and 2018 FIGO staging systems. We selected 10% of cervical cancer cases (2010-2015) from the Korean national cancer registry (2010-2015) through a systematic sampling method. We collected information using a collaborative stage data collection system and evaluated the results according to both staging systems. The log-rank test was used to analyze overall survival differences. No significant difference in survival was observed between 2018 subdivisions IB1/IB2/IB3 (P = 0.069), whereas a considerable difference was observed between these subdivisions according to histological subtypes. In the 2018 FIGO staging system, stage IIIC had better survival than stage IIIA/IIIB (P < 0.001). We observed considerable heterogeneity in 2018 stage IIIC related to the corresponding stages of the 2014 staging system (stages IA1-IIIB). The size of the primary cervical mass was related to survival (P < 0.001). In conclusion, using lymph node status to define stage IIIC captured a broad range of prognoses. The inclusion of primary tumor size considerations may improve the staging accuracy of advanced cervical cancer.
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.