ArticleCancer medicine2023
Comparison of recurrence patterns in cervical cancer patients with positive lymph nodes versus negative.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reirradiation for Recurrent Cervical Cancer Within the Previous Radiation Field Using a Bioabsorbable Spacer: A Case Report.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2026Article
- Social inequities and clinical outcomes in young women with cervical cancer: Real-world evidence.PloS one · 2026Article
- 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
- The distribution pattern of pelvic lymph nodal metastases in cervical cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Comparison of recurrence patterns in cervical cancer patients with positive lymph nodes versus negative.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare patterns of recurrence in 2009 FIGO Stage IB-IIA (T
methodsThe epidemiological and clinical data of 1352 patients who had undergone radical hysterectomy and systematic lymphadenectomy with cervical cancer treated from January 2008 to April 2019 at a tertiary teaching hospital were retrospectively collected. The primary aim was to discover the lymph node status-dependent patterns and time of recurrence.
resultsTumor recurrence and death were significantly less common in patients with cN0 than cN1. In addition, the length of time to recurrence (median 60 months cN0 vs. 43 months cN1, p < 0.001) and death (median 84 months cN0 vs. 68 months cN1 p < 0.001) were significantly longer in cN0 versus cN1 patients. The cumulative rate of relapse also showed a significant difference between cN0 and cN1 groups, especially the 1-year relapse rate (2.14% vs. 10.78%). Of the patients who recurred, there was no difference in number of recurrent sites between cN0 and cN1 groups (solitary metastases:35.8% of cN0 and 35.6% of cN1; multiple metastases: 64.2% of cN0 and 64.4% of cN1). Similarly, there was no statistical difference in recurrence sites of cervical cancer between cN0 and cN1 groups based on three categories, (p = 0.646). However, in the six categories, patients' vaginal vaults with negative lymph nodes were more prone to recurrence, while the distribution of other recurrence sites showed no significant difference between the two groups.
conclusionsThere is a significant improvement of relapse-free survival in the cN0 group, and the recurrence time of cN0 patients is significantly delayed than cN1 group. However, except for the risk of metastasis of the vaginal vault, the site of relapse remains similar.
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.