Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34461074›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2022

Open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study.

Gloria Salvo, Pedro T Ramirez, Mario M Leitao, David Cibula, Xiaohua Wu, Henrik Falconer, Jan Persson, Myriam Perrotta, Berit J Mosgaard, Ali Kucukmetin and 26 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Fertility preservation in gynecologic cancer patients.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

36 authors at 19 institutions in 12 countries.

Gloria SalvoDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: GSalvo@mdandeson.org.
Pedro T RamirezDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Mario M LeitaoDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
David CibulaGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Xiaohua WuDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Henrik FalconerDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jan PerssonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University Lund, Sweden.
Myriam PerrottaServicio de Ginecología, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Berit J MosgaardDepartment of Gynecology, University Hospital Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ali KucukmetinNorthern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, United Kingdom.
Igor BerlevDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Gabriel RendonDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto de Cancerología Las Américas Auna, Medellín, Colombia.
Kaijiang LiuDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Marcelo VieiraDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.
Mihai E CapilnaFirst Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mureş, Târgu Mureş, Romania.
Christina FotopoulouDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London and West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Glauco BaiocchiDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil.
Dilyara KaidarovaDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Kazakh Institute of Oncology and Radiology, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Reitan RibeiroDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Erasto Gaertner, Curitiba, Brazil.
Silvana Pedra-NobreDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Roman KocianGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Xiaoqi LiDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Jin LiDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Kolbrún PálsdóttirDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Florencia NollServicio de Ginecología, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Stuart RundleNorthern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, United Kingdom.
Elena UlrikhAlmazov National Medical Research Centre, North-Western State Medical University named after I. I. Mechnikov, Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Zhijun HuDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Mihai GheorgheFirst Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mureş, Târgu Mureş, Romania.
Srdjan SasoDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London and West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Raikhan BolatbekovaDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Kazakh Institute of Oncology and Radiology, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Audrey TsunodaDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Erasto Gaertner, Curitiba, Brazil; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Pilar Hospital, Curitiba, Brazil.
Brandelyn PitcherDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Jimin WuDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Diana UrbauerDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Rene ParejaDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Astorga Clínica de Oncología, Medellín, Colombia; Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USFudan University Shanghai Cancer Center · CNCharles University · CZHospital Israelita Albert Einstein · BRHospital Italiano de Buenos Aires · ARImperial College London · GBKarolinska Institutet · SEKazakh Institute of Oncology and Radiology · KZMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USQueen Elizabeth Hospital · GBShanghai Jiao Tong University · CNUniversitatea de Medicină, Farmacie, Științe și Tehnologie „George Emil Palade” din Târgu Mureș · ROAC Camargo Hospital · BRFederal Almazov North-West Medical Research Centre · RUHospital Erasto Gaertner · BRInstituto de Cancerología Las Américas · COInstituto Nacional de Cancerología · COLund University · SERigshospitalet · DK

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive radical trachelectomy has emerged as an alternative to open radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer desiring future fertility. Recent data suggest worse oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy than after open radical hysterectomy in stage I cervical cancer.

objectiveWe aimed to compare 4.5-year disease-free survival after open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. STUDY

designThis was a collaborative, international retrospective study (International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study) of patients treated during 2005-2017 at 18 centers in 12 countries. Eligible patients had squamous carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma; had a preoperative tumor size of ≤2 cm; and underwent open or minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) radical trachelectomy with nodal assessment (pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or sentinel lymph node biopsy). The exclusion criteria included neoadjuvant chemotherapy or preoperative pelvic radiotherapy, previous lymphadenectomy or pelvic retroperitoneal surgery, pregnancy, stage IA1 disease with lymphovascular space invasion, aborted trachelectomy (conversion to radical hysterectomy), or vaginal approach. Surgical approach, indication, and adjuvant therapy regimen were at the discretion of the treating institution. A total of 715 patients were entered into the study database. However, 69 patients were excluded, leaving 646 in the analysis. Endpoints were the 4.5-year disease-free survival rate (primary), 4.5-year overall survival rate (secondary), and recurrence rate (secondary). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate disease-free survival and overall survival. A post hoc weighted analysis was performed, comparing the recurrence rates between surgical approaches, with open surgery being considered as standard and minimally invasive surgery as experimental.

resultsOf 646 patients, 358 underwent open surgery, and 288 underwent minimally invasive surgery. The median (range) patient age was 32 (20-42) years for open surgery vs 31 (18-45) years for minimally invasive surgery (P=.11). Median (range) pathologic tumor size was 15 (0-31) mm for open surgery and 12 (0.8-40) mm for minimally invasive surgery (P=.33). The rates of pelvic nodal involvement were 5.3% (19 of 358 patients) for open surgery and 4.9% (14 of 288 patients) for minimally invasive surgery (P=.81). Median (range) follow-up time was 5.5 (0.20-16.70) years for open surgery and 3.1 years (0.02-11.10) years for minimally invasive surgery (P<.001). At 4.5 years, 17 of 358 patients (4.7%) with open surgery and 18 of 288 patients (6.2%) with minimally invasive surgery had recurrence (P=.40). The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates were 94.3% (95% confidence interval, 91.6-97.0) for open surgery and 91.5% (95% confidence interval, 87.6-95.6) for minimally invasive surgery (log-rank P=.37). Post hoc propensity score analysis of recurrence risk showed no difference between surgical approaches (P=.42). At 4.5 years, there were 6 disease-related deaths (open surgery, 3; minimally invasive surgery, 3) (log-rank P=.49). The 4.5-year overall survival rates were 99.2% (95% confidence interval, 97.6-99.7) for open surgery and 99.0% (95% confidence interval, 79.0-99.8) for minimally invasive surgery.

conclusionThe 4.5-year disease-free survival rates did not differ between open radical trachelectomy and minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. However, recurrence rates in each group were low. Ongoing prospective studies of conservative management of early-stage cervical cancer may help guide future management.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdolescentAdultBrazilCarcinoma, AdenosquamousCarcinoma, Squamous CellDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFertility PreservationHumansMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresTrachelectomyUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung Adultdisease-free survivalfertilityhysterectomylaparoscopyminimally invasive surgical proceduresrecurrenceretrospective studiesrobotic surgical procedurestrachelectomyuterine cervical neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34461074
PMCPMC9518841
OpenAlexW3197422982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.