ArticleBMC cancer2021
Assessment of retroperitoneal lymph node status in locally advanced cervical cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The safety of combining Endostar with concurrent chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer and the evaluation of its anti-angiogenic effects via transrectal contrast-enhanced ultrasound.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Whether individualized dose escalation should be recommended for lymph nodes with different sizes in the definitive radiotherapy of cervical cancer?Radiation oncology (London, England) · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe assessment of retroperitoneal lymph node status in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer is still a problem. This study aimed to explore the choice of these assessment methods.
methodsLaparoscopic retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy was performed in 96 patients with advanced cervical cancer. The positive rates of lymph node metastasis were analyzed. The values of computed tomography lymph node minimum axial diameter (MAD) and squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC-Ag), and their combination in predicting retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis were compared. High-risk factors for common iliac lymph node (CILN) and/or para-aortic lymph node (PALN) metastasis were analyzed.
resultsThe lymph node metastasis rate was 62.50% and the CILN and/or PALN metastasis rate was 31.25%. Overall, 96 patients had 172 visible lymph nodes. The positive rate of lymph node metastasis was significantly higher in the MAD ≥1.0 cm group (83.33%) than in the 0.5 cm ≤ MAD < 1.0 cm group (26.82%). The critical values of MAD and SCC-Ag in determining lymph node metastasis were 1.0 cm and 5.2 ng/mL, respectively. The accuracy, specificity, and Youden index of MAD ≥1.0 cm combined with SCC-Ag ≥ 5.2 ng/mL for evaluating lymph node metastasis were 75.71%, 100%, and 0.59, respectively, and were significantly different from the values for the MAD ≥1.0 cm (72.09%, 80.56%, and 0.47, respectively) and SCC-Ag ≥ 5.2 ng/mL (71.43%, 68.97%, and 0.42, respectively) groups. Correlation analysis showed that non-squamous cell carcinoma, pelvic lymph node (PLN) MAD ≥1.0 cm plus number ≥ 2, and 1 PLN MAD ≥1.0 cm with CILN and/or PALN MAD 0.5-1.0 cm were risk factors for CILN and/or PALN metastasis.
conclusionPatients with MAD ≥1.0 cm and SCC-Ag ≥ 5.2 ng/mL, as well as high risk factors for CILN and/or PALN metastasis, should undergo resection of enlarged lymph nodes below the common iliac gland and lymphadenectomy of CILN/PALN to reduce tumor burden and to clarify lymph node metastasis status for accurate guidance in follow-up treatment. Patients with MAD < 1.0 cm and SCC-Ag < 5.2 ng/mL may be treated with chemoradiotherapy directly based on imaging, given the low lymph node metastasis rate.
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.