ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2022
Open Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: The CIRCOL Group Study.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival outcomes.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Laparoscopic type 3 radical hysterectomy with enclosed colpotomy using the Bakay technique for early-stage cervical cancer: a retrospective case series.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- ROCC/GOG-3043: a randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open surgery for early-stage cervical cancer.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2025Article
- Article
- Robot-assisted Müllerian compartment resection for cervical cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- The MEMORY Study: MulticentEr study of Minimally invasive surgery versus Open Radical hYsterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes.Gynecologic oncology · 2022Article
- Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Short-Term Outcome of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Conventional Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Thoracic Esophageal Cancer.World journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Comparative Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy with Sentinel Node Navigation and Open Surgery for Cervical Cancer.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the survival outcomes of patients in a Brazilian cohort who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with open surgery for early stage cervical cancer.
methodsA multicenter database was constructed, registering 1280 cervical cancer patients who had undergone radical hysterectomy from 2000 to 2019. For the final analysis, we included cases with a tumor ≤ 4 cm (stages Ia2 to Ib2, FIGO 2018) that underwent surgery from January 2007 to December 2017. Propensity score matching was also performed.
resultsA total of 776 cases were ultimately analyzed, 526 of which were included in the propensity score matching analysis (open, n = 263; MIS, n = 263). There were 52 recurrences (9.9%), 28 (10.6%) with MIS and 24 (9.1%) with open surgery (p = 0.55); and 34 deaths were recorded, 13 (4.9%) and 21 (8.0%), respectively (p = 0.15). We noted a 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 88.2% and 90.3% for those who received MIS and open surgery, respectively (HR 1.32; 95% CI: 0.76-2.29; p = 0.31) and a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 91.8% and 91.1%, respectively (HR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.40-1.61; p = 0.53). There was no difference in 3-year DFS rates between open surgery and MIS for tumors ≤ 2 cm (95.7% vs. 90.8%; p = 0.16) or > 2 cm (83.9% vs. 85.4%; p = 0.77). Also, the 5-year OS between open surgery and MIS did not differ for tumors ≤ 2 cm (93.1% vs. 93.6%; p = 0.82) or > 2 cm (88.9% vs. 89.8%; p = 0.35).
conclusionsSurvival outcomes were similar between minimally invasive and open radical hysterectomy in this large retrospective multicenter cohort.
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.