Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34666213›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)2021

The annual recurrence risk model for tailored surveillance strategy in patients with cervical cancer.

David Cibula, Lukáš Dostálek, Jiri Jarkovsky, Constantijne H Mom, Aldo Lopez, Henrik Falconer, Anna Fagotti, Ali Ayhan, Sarah H Kim, David Isla Ortiz and 23 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

33 authors.

David CibulaGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital (Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group, CEEGOG), Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: dc@davidcibula.cz.
Lukáš DostálekGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital (Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group, CEEGOG), Prague, Czech Republic.
Jiri JarkovskyInstitute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Constantijne H MomAmsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Aldo LopezDepartment of Gynecological Surgery, National Institute of Neoplastic Diseases, Lima, Peru.
Henrik FalconerDepartment of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital and Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anna FagottiFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Rome, Italy.
Ali AyhanBaskent University School of Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Ankara, Turkey.
Sarah H KimMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA.
David Isla OrtizGynecology Oncology Center, National Institute of Cancerology Mexico, Mexico.
Jaroslav KlatDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital and University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Andreas ObermairQueensland Centre for Gynaecological Cancer, The University of Queensland, Australia.
Fabio LandoniUniversity of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynaecologic Oncology Surgical Unit, ASST-Monza, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
Juliana RodriguezDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia.
Ranjit ManchandaWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, & Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Jan KosťunDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Pilsen, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Ricardo Dos ReisDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Mehmet M MeydanliDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Diego OdettoDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Rene LakyGynecology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Ignacio ZapardielGynecologic Oncology Unit, La Paz University Hospital - IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain.
Vit WeinbergerUniversity Hospital Brno, Medical Faculty of Masaryk University, Czech Republic.
Klára BenešováInstitute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Martina BorčinováGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital (Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group, CEEGOG), Prague, Czech Republic.
Darwin PariDepartment of Gynecological Surgery, National Institute of Neoplastic Diseases, Lima, Peru.
Sahar SalehiDepartment of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital and Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nicolò BizzarriFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Rome, Italy.
Huseyin AkilliBaskent University School of Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Ankara, Turkey.
Nadeem R Abu-RustumMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA.
Rosa A Salcedo-HernándezGynecology Oncology Center, National Institute of Cancerology Mexico, Mexico.
Veronika JavůrkováDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital and University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Jiří SlámaGynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital (Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group, CEEGOG), Prague, Czech Republic.
Luc R C W van LonkhuijzenAmsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCurrent guidelines for surveillance strategy in cervical cancer are rigid, recommending the same strategy for all survivors. The aim of this study was to develop a robust model allowing for individualised surveillance based on a patient's risk profile.

methodsData of 4343 early-stage patients with cervical cancer treated between 2007 and 2016 were obtained from the international SCCAN (Surveillance in Cervical Cancer) consortium. The Cox proportional hazards model predicting disease-free survival (DFS) was developed and internally validated. The risk score, derived from regression coefficients of the model, stratified the cohort into significantly distinctive risk groups. On its basis, the annual recurrence risk model (ARRM) was calculated.

resultsFive variables were included in the prognostic model: maximal pathologic tumour diameter; tumour histotype; grade; number of positive pelvic lymph nodes; and lymphovascular space invasion. Five risk groups significantly differing in prognosis were identified with a five-year DFS of 97.5%, 94.7%, 85.2% and 63.3% in increasing risk groups, whereas a two-year DFS in the highest risk group equalled 15.4%. Based on the ARRM, the annual recurrence risk in the lowest risk group was below 1% since the beginning of follow-up and declined below 1% at years three, four and >5 in the medium-risk groups. In the whole cohort, 26% of recurrences appeared at the first year of the follow-up, 48% by year two and 78% by year five.

conclusionThe ARRM represents a potent tool for tailoring the surveillance strategy in early-stage patients with cervical cancer based on the patient's risk status and respective annual recurrence risk. It can easily be used in routine clinical settings internationally.

Indexed as

Annual recurrence riskCervical cancerPrognostic modelSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID34666213
PMCPMC9406128

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.