ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2022
Open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study.
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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis of treatment for early-stage cervical cancer: open versus minimally invasive radical trachelectomy.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy of laparoscopic versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy on stress response and urodynamic status in patients with early cervical cancer.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Review
- Robotic radical trachelectomy in early stage cervical cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Review
- Robotic trachelectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy for cervical cancer: a prospective study investigating minimally invasive radicality.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Oncologic and obstetric outcomes of a novel nerve-sparing radical trachelectomy while preserving the uterine branches of the pelvic nerves.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Trachelectomy and Cerclage Placement as Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Cervical Cancer-An Expert Survey.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- A long-term retrospective analysis of oncologic and fertility outcomes in cervical cancer patients undergoing radical trachelectomy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection for early cervical cancer effectively improves surgical efficacy.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Feasibility of the "cuff-sleeve" suture method in improving the uterine blood supply after radical trachelectomy: A retrospective analysis.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2024Article
- The role of minimally invasive surgery in gynaecological cancer: an overview of current trends.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2024Article
- Review
- Fertility Preservation in Cervical Cancer-Treatment Strategies and Indications.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Identification of 10 differentially expressed genes involved in the tumorigenesis of cervical cancerPeerJ · 2024Article
- Surgical, oncologic, and obstetric outcomes of radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: results from a retrospective cohort study at Brazil National Cancer Institute.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Conservative treatment of cervical cancer: A single center experience over a two-decade period.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2023Article
- Fertility preservation in gynecologic cancer patients.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2023Article
- Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.American journal of cancer research · 2023Article
- Fertility-Sparing and Less Radical Surgery for Cervical Cancer.Current oncology reports · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
36 authors at 19 institutions in 12 countries.
Funding
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
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.