ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2022
Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: the Right Surgical Approach.
Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- MILACC study: could undetected lymph node micrometastases have impacted recurrence rate in the LACC trial?International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2023Trial
- Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Comparative Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Pretreatment CRP-Albumin-Lymphocyte (CALLY) Index as a Prognostic Biomarker of Survival and Recurrence-Free Survival in Patients With Early-Stage Cervical Cancer After Radical Hysterectomy: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2026Article
- Risk factors for depression in patients in perimenopause with cervical cancer.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- A Minimally Invasive Treatment Approach for Early-Stage Uterine Cervical Cancer: The Impact of the LACC Trial and a Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- A digital health intervention: development and validation of a social media nursing program for sexual dysfunction following cervical cancer radical hysterectomy.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: a narrative review of controversies and clinical implications.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2025Review
- Diagnostic value and clinical significance of serum miR-4534 combined with transvaginal color Doppler ultrasound in cervical cancer.Discover oncology · 2024Article
- Feasibility and early oncologic outcomes of Total Intracorporeal Robotic Radical Hysterectomy with Vaginal Cerclage (TIRRHVC) for the treatment of clinical stage IB cervical cancer: A tumor containment technique.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2024Article
- Robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: current trends and controversies.Journal of Cancer · 2024Review
- Port Site Metastasis After Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecologic Malignancies: Two Case Reports and a Review of the Literature.International journal of women's health · 2023Article
- The Future in Standards of Care for Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery to Improve Training and Education.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Comparison of Prognosis between Abdominal and Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomies in Early-stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
opinion statementRadical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node assessment is the standard initial therapy for early-stage cervical cancer. Radical hysterectomy via laparotomy (an "open" approach) was first described more than 100 years ago and has been the standard for decades. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been increasingly adopted by many surgeons due to its reported perioperative benefits. MIS was deemed safe for radical hysterectomy for many years based on multiple retrospective publications. Recently, the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial reported that patients randomized to MIS had inferior oncologic outcomes. The results of the LACC trial and subsequent retrospective studies led multiple professional societies to state that open radical hysterectomy should remain the gold standard surgical approach. We acknowledge that the open approach for radical hysterectomy is an appropriate option for all cervical cancer patients eligible for surgical treatment. However, considering the limitations of the LACC trial and the available data from other retrospective studies, we feel the MIS approach should not be simply abandoned. There may still be a role for MIS in cervical cancer surgery for properly and carefully selected cases and with detailed counseling; surgeons should analyze their own outcomes closely in order to perform such counseling. Modification of surgical technique and maintaining proper oncologic surgical principles are key for MIS to remain a viable option. Tumor manipulation and contamination should be avoided. Transcervical uterine manipulators should not be used. Cervical and tumor containment prior to colpotomy, as is performed during an open approach, is required. This will all require validation in future trials. We await the results of ongoing randomized trials to further inform us. A one-size-fits-all approach may be short-sighted; we may need to decide treatment strategy based on the notion of the right surgical approach for the right patient by the right surgeon.
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.