ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2022
Comparison of survival outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy and radiochemotherapy IIA2 (FIGO2018) cervical cancer: a retrospective study from a large database of 63,926 cases of cervical cancer in China.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to compare the 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year DFS disease-free survival (DFS) of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and radiochemotherapy (R-CT) for stage IIA2 (FIGO 2018) cervical cancer patients.
methodsBased on this multicenter, retrospective cohort study based on data from the clinical diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer in China (Four C) database, 609 cases with 2018 FIGO stage IIA2 cervical cancer from 2004 to 2018 were reviewed. The 5-year OS and 5-year DFS of patients with either of the two treatment methods were compared by means of a multivariate Cox regression model and the log-rank method in the total study population and after propensity score matching (PSM).
resultsWe selected 609 of 63,926 patients and found that R-CT was associated with a significantly worse 5-year OS (71.8% vs. 95.3%, P < 0.001; hazard ratio (HR) = 6.596, 95% CI 3.524-12.346) and 5-year DFS (69.4% vs. 91.4%, P < 0.001; HR = 4.132, 95% CI 2.570-6.642, P < 0.001) than ARH in the total study population. After matching (n = 230/230), among FIGO 2018 IIA2 patients, the 5-year OS and DFS were lower in the R-CT group than in the ARH group (OS: 73.9% vs. 94.7%, P < 0.001; HR = 5.633, 95% CI 2.826-11.231, P < 0.001; DFS: 69.2% vs. 91.1%, P < 0.001; HR = 3.978, 95% CI 2.336-6.773, P < 0.001, respectively).
conclusionsIn patients with stage FIGO 2018 IIA2 cervical cancer, ARH offers better 5-year OS and DFS outcomes than R-CT; however, due to the inherent biases of retrospective studies, this needs to be confirmed by randomized trials.
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.