ArticleInternational journal of women's health2021
Optimizing the Detection of Occult Cervical Cancer: A Prospective Multicentre Study in China.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk Factors for Occult Invasive Cervical Cancer in Women with Abnormal Cervical Screening and Infeasible Diagnostic Conization.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Additional role of ECC in the detection and treatment of cervical HSIL.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Risk Factors of Positive Endocervical Curettage and Predictive Model Construction Based on Primary Human Papillomavirus Screening.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEarly-stage cervical cancer is usually diagnosed by colposcopy-directed biopsy (CDB) and/or endocervical curettage (ECC), but some neglected lesions must be detected by conization because they are occult. This study aimed to explore the optimal method for detecting these "occult" cervical cancers. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 1299 patients who were high-risk for early-stage cervical cancer from five centres in China were prospectively included. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of cytology, HPV testing, colposcopy and CDB&ECC for detecting "occult" cervical cancer and discussed the diagnostic importance of transformation zone (TZ) type, conization length and the proportion of cervical cone excision.
resultsThe diagnostic agreement between colposcopy impression and conization was 64.5% and 72.4% between CDB&ECC and conization. Forty-two patients were finally diagnosed with pathologic cancer, and the sensitivities of cytology, colposcopy, CDB&ECC were 4.8%, 7.1%, and 47.4%, respectively. Twenty cases were neglected by CDB&ECC but further diagnosed as cancer by conization, considered to be occult cervical cancer, accounting for 1.6%. Cytologic high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL)+, positive HPV, biopsy HSIL+ and cervical TZ type 3 were considered risk factors for developing HSIL+, while colposcopy impression HSIL+ was not. There was a significant difference between cancerous and HSIL patients in the proportion of cervical cone excision (P<0.001), which was recognized as a risk factor (P<0.001) for detecting cancer, while the length of cervical cone excision was not. The average proportion was 0.62, and the minimal effective proportion was 0.56.
conclusionSince the incidence of occult cervical cancer neglected by CDB&ECC, colposcopy and cytology was far beyond expectations, conization is necessary, especially in patients with TZ type 3, high-grade cytology and biopsy results. As the cervical length varies in patients, the proportion of cervical cone excision might be a better indicator for detecting occult cervical cancer.
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.