ArticleReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2022
Large Conization-Retrospective Monocentric Results for Fertility Preservation in Young Women with Early Stage Cervical Cancer.
Article in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oncological and reproductive outcomes of conization combined with pelvic node evaluation in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Long-Term Outcomes of Local Tumor Destruction/Excision Versus Total Hysterectomy for Stage IA Cervical cancer: A Retrospective Study Based on the SEER Database.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Reproductive and Obstetric Outcomes after Fertility-Sparing Treatments for Cervical Cancer: Current Approach and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Fertility-sparing surgery in early-stage cervical cancer: laparoscopic versus abdominal radical trachelectomy.BMC women's health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The shorter cervical segment after classic radical trachelectomy (RT) imposes a number of pregnancy associated risk factors. In this aspect, large conization (LC) could be an oncologically safe alternative to RT in young women with early stage cervical cancer who want to spare their fertility. Our aim was to evaluate fertility-sparing surgical treatment of early stage cervical cancer after the introduction of LC. Our objectives were to assess surgical, oncological, fertility and obstetric outcomes. We retrospectively investigated oncological and fertility outcomes of patients who underwent LC in a large oncological single University centre between 2009 and 2014. Medical records were reviewed and analysed for surgical, oncological, fertility and obstetric outcomes. Postal questionnaires were collected to further evaluate and validate the fertility and obstetric outcomes. A total of 23 LCs were analysed. Seven patients had to undergo secondary radical hysterectomy after LC due to unclear resection margins. Nine of 16 women tried to conceive, of which all nine became pregnant. Seven patients underwent a prophylactic cerclage between 13 and 16 gestational weeks and seven women delivered 9 children; the majority of women conceived spontaneously. Follow-up time was a median of 3.9 years (2.6-8 years). There was no relapse of cervical cancer in the investigated timeframe. Early stage cervical cancers treated by LC are associated with excellent oncological outcomes. LC appears to be a safe option for eligible women who intend to maintain their fertility.
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.