ArticlePloS one2022
The diagnostic value of core needle biopsy in cervical cancer: A retrospective analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of ADC-based nomogram model for predicting the prognostic factors in preoperative clinical early-stage cervical cancer patients.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- The Predictive Value of Preoperative Histological Risk Factors in Early Cervical Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The Polish Society of Gynecological Oncology Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cervical Cancer (v2024.0).Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Predicting the status of lymphovascular space invasion using quantitative parameters from synthetic MRI in cervical squamous cell carcinoma without lymphatic metastasis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Pap Smear Images Classification Using Machine Learning: A Literature Matrix.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical carcinoma is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among women worldwide. Histological subtype, lymphovascular space invasion and tumor grade could have a prognostic and predictive value for patients' outcome and the knowledge of these histologic characteristics may influence clinical decision making. However, studies evaluating the diagnostic value of various biopsy techniques regarding these parameters of cervical cancer are scarce. We reviewed 318 cases of cervical carcinoma with available pathology reports from preoperative core needle biopsy (CNB) assessment and from final postoperative evaluation of the hysterectomy specimen. Setting the postoperative comprehensive pathological evaluation as reference, we analysed CNB assessment of histological tumor characteristics. In addition, we performed multivariable logistic regression to identify factors influencing the accuracy in identifying LVSI and tumor grade. CNB was highly accurate in discriminating histological subtype. Sensitivity and specificity were 98.8% and 89% for squamous cell carcinoma, 92.9% and 96.6% for adenocarcinoma, 33.3% and 100% in adenosquamous carcinoma respectively. Neuroendocrine carcinoma was always recognized correctly. The accuracy of the prediction of LVSI was 61.9% and was positively influenced by tumor size in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and negatively influenced by strong peritumoral inflammation. High tumor grade (G3) was diagnosed accurately in 73.9% of cases and was influenced by histological tumor type. In conclusion, CNB is an accurate sampling technique for histological classification of cervical cancer and represents a reasonable alternative to other biopsy techniques.
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.