ArticleScientific reports2021
Clinical effects of cervical conization with positive margins in cervical cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Extensive lesions and a positive cone margin are strong predictors of residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy following conization for squamous intraepithelial lesion grade 2 or 3 study design.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Prognostic Value of Body Composition and Systemic Inflammatory Markers in Patients with Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Following Chemoradiotherapy.Journal of inflammation research · 2023Article
- The Influence of Family-Oriented Enabling Psychological Nursing on Posttraumatic Stress and Fear of Recurrence in Patients with Cervical Cancer.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 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
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radical surgery after cervical conization is a common approach for the treatment of cervical cancer. In some cases, disease progression is observed after positive margins at conization, but the effect of conization on disease progression remains unclear. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of positive margins at conization in cervical cancer. A total of 101 patients who underwent cervical conization before radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection were considered eligible by reviewing medical records. The association between the positive margins and patient outcomes, including subsequent lymph node metastasis, was evaluated. The rate of lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) positivity at radical surgery was significantly higher in patients with positive margins (p = 0.017) than in those with negative margins, although there was no significant difference in the rate of pelvic lymph node metastasis (p = 0.155). Moreover, there was no significant difference in the overall survival or progression-free survival between the two groups (p = 0.332 and 0.200, respectively). A positive margin at conization presented no significant prognostic disadvantage; thus, diagnostic conization is one of the most suitable treatment options for early-stage cervical cancer that is difficult to accurately assess.
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.