ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Association of preoperative cone biopsy with recurrences after radical hysterectomy.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Limited Survival Benefit of Preoperative Conization Before Radical Surgery in Stage IB Cervical Cancer: An IPTW-Adjusted Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Surgical Advancements, Immunotherapy, Targeted and Conventional Therapies, Biopsy, Colposcopy, and Pap Smear Integration in the Management of Cervical Cancer.Current medicinal chemistry · 2025Review
- Outcomes of Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Carcinoma, with or without Prior Cervical Excision Procedure.Cancers · 2024Article
- Statement of the Uterus Commission of the Gynecological Oncology Working Group (AGO) on Surgical Therapy for Patients with Stage IA2-IIB1 Cervical Cancer.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2023Article
- Association of preoperative conization with recurrences after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for FIGO 2018 stage IB1 cervical cancer.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate association of preoperative cone biopsy with the probability of recurrent disease after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.
methodsThis is a retrospective single-center study. Patients with cervical cancer stage IA1 with LVSI to IIA2 and squamous, adenosquamous and adenocarcinoma subtype were included. Patients were analyzed for general characteristics and recurrence-free survival (RFS).
resultsIn total, of 480 patients with cervical cancer, 183 patients met the inclusion criteria (117 with laparoscopic and 66 with open surgery). The median tumor diameter was 25.0 mm (range 4.6-70.0 mm) with 66 (36.2%) patients having tumors smaller than 2 cm. During median follow-up of 54.0 months (range 0-166.0 months), the RFS for the laparoscopic cohort was 93.2% and 87.5% at 3 and 4.5 years, and 79.3% for the open cohort after 3 and 4.5 years, respectively. In total, 17 (9.3%) patients developed recurrent disease, 9 (7.3%) after laparoscopic, and 8 (12.1%) after open surgery. No preoperative cone biopsy (OR 9.60, 95% CI 2.14-43.09) as well as tumor diameter > 2 cm (OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.20-24.25) were significantly associated with increased risk for recurrence. In multivariate analysis, only missing preoperative cone biopsy was significantly associated with increased risk for recurrence (OR 5.90, 95% CI 1.11-31.29)
conclusionThere appears to be a subgroup of patients (preoperative cone biopsy, tumor diameter < 2 cm) with excellent survival and low risk for recurrence after radical hysterectomy which might benefit from the advantages of laparoscopic surgery.
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.