ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Discussion on the rationality of FIGO 2018 stage IIIC for cervical cancer with oncological outcomes: a cohort study.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Survival outcomes in IIIC cervical cancer by treatment strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Nodal status in predicting the outcome of treatment with definitive chemoradiation in patients with cervical cancer in FIGO IIIC1 and IIIC2 stages.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026Article
- Rationality of FIGO 2018 IIIC cervical cancer according to local tumor and pelvic lymph node metastatic extent-a cohort study.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Efficacy of integrating surgical interventions with chemoradiotherapy in managing stage IIIC cervical cancer.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Article
- Validation of the 2018 FIGO staging system for stage IIIC cervical cancer by determining the metabolic and radiomic heterogeneity of primary tumors based onAbdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Stage migration and survival outcomes in patients with cervical cancer at Stage IIIC according to the 2018 FIGO staging system: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Initial treatment for FIGO 2018 stage IIIC cervical cancer based on histological type: A 14-year multicenter study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Rationality of FIGO 2018 IIIC restaging of cervical cancer according to local tumor size: A cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Article
- New progress and challenge in gynecological cancer.Annals of translational medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study explored the rationality of the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC for cervical cancer to determine outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of cervical cancer patients who had received radical surgery or Radiotherapy. Multivariate analysis was used to compare 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for FIGO 2018 stages IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC cervical cancer patients. Based on tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging, IIIC cases were divided into 5 subgroups: T1a, T1b, T2a, T2b, and T3. The 5-year OS and DFS of the different IIIC subgroups were further compared using multivariate analysis. Results: (I) The 5-year OS for FIGO 2018 IIIA (n=251), IIIB (n=1,824), and IIIC (n=3,137) were 73.7%, 69.0%, and 74.3%, respectively (P<0.001), and DFS rates were 64.3%, 60.6%, and 68.0%, respectively (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that IIIA was associated with 5-year OS [hazard ratio (HR) =0.998, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.739-1.349, P=0.990], but there was no significant correlation with DFS (HR =1.081, 95% CI: 0.843-1.387, P=0.539). Compared with IIIC, IIIB had a lower 5-year OS (HR =1.291, 95% CI: 1.135-1.468, P<0.001) and DFS (HR =1.354, 95% CI: 1.215-1.508, P<0.001). (II) The 5-year OS of the T1a group (n=4), T1b group (n=861), T2a group (n=587), T2b (n=641) group, and T3 group (n=1,044) were 100.0%, 81.9%, 76.1%, 74.0%, and 65.0%, respectively (P<0.001), and the 5-year DFS were 100.0%, 74.5%, 65.9%, 72.6%, and 61.3%, respectively (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that compared with the T1b group, T2a (HR =1.405, 95% CI: 1.076-1.834, P=0.012), T2b (HR =1.592, 95% CI: 1.203-2.108, P=0.001), and T3 (HR =2.495, 95% CI: 1.971-3.157, P<0.001) were associated with a lower 5-year OS. T2a (HR =1.372, 95% CI: 1.108-1.699, P=0.004), T2b (HR =1.337, 95% CI: 1.061-1.684, P=0.014), and T3 (HR =2.015, 95% CI: 1.659-2.446, P<0.001) were associated with lower 5-year DFS. Conclusions: The outcome for FIGO 2018 stage IIIC cervical cancer is not worse than that for stage IIIB or IIIA. The outcome for stage IIIC is related to local tumor factors. As the local tumor progresses, the oncological outcome worsens.
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.