Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35295012›Full record

ReviewThe Indian journal of medical research2021

Implications of the revised cervical cancer FIGO staging system.

Neerja Bhatla, Seema Singhal, Ekta Dhamija, Sandeep Mathur, Jayashree Natarajan, Amita Maheshwari

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Indian journal of medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06197126 (A Prognostic Model Based on MRI for Cervical Cancer Patients Treated With Radiotherapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06197126 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

A Prognostic Model Based on MRI for Cervical Cancer Patients Treated With Radiotherapy

TypeobservationalSponsorFujian Cancer HospitalRan2024 to 2028Enrolled200ConditionsCervical Cancer, Radiotherapy, Prognostic Model, MRIArmsTreatment mainly composed of external pelvic beam radiotherapy (EBRT) followed by individualized high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy (HDR-ICBT) .
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Node-RADS in cervical cancer: a multi-reader agreement and diagnostic performance study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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 · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Staging of Cervical Cancer: What has Changed?Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI, CT, and [Insights into imaging · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Neerja BhatlaDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Seema SinghalDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Ekta DhamijaDepartment of Radiodiagnosis, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Sandeep MathurDepartment of Pathology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Jayashree NatarajanDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, Cancer Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Amita MaheshwariDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 2018 revised International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging of cervical cancer has brought about a paradigm shift by offering the option of adding imaging and pathology to clinical staging. This makes it applicable to all types of resource situations across geographies with implications for all stakeholders, including gynaecologists, gynaecologic oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and radiation and medical oncologists. The new staging classification has more granularity, with three sub-stages of stage IB and a new category of stage IIIC for all cases with lymph node (LN) involvement. The major limitations of clinical staging were inaccurate assessment of tumour size and inability to assess pelvic and para-aortic LNs with the limited investigations permitted by FIGO to change the stage. This resulted in understaging of stages IB-III, and overstaging of stage IIIB, which has been largely overcome by incorporating imaging findings. Although any imaging modality can be used, magnetic resonance imaging appears to be the best imaging modality for early-stage disease owing to its better soft-tissue resolution. However, the use of contrast-enhanced computed tomography or ultrasonography are also feasible options, depending on the availability and resources. But wherever pathological evaluation is possible, it supersedes clinical and radiological findings.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLymph NodesMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm StagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedCervical cancerFIGOimplicationsoncologistspathologistsradiologistsrevisionstaging

Identifiers

PMID35295012
PMCPMC9131753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

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.